JUDGMENT
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. The wife has filed this first appeal against the order dated 4.3.1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak whereby the petition filed by her husband Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) for dissolution of their marriage has been allowed on the ground of desertion.
2. Dalbir Singh respondent and Smt. Raj appellant were married according to Hindu rites in village Baland, District Rohtak and thereafter resided together as husband and wife at village Chhara. A female child name Neetu was born in the year 1981 out of this wedlock. The husband who is in the Army alleged that Smt. Raj was a short tempered lady and her behavior towards him and other members of his family was insulting from the very beginning and that she never cared for the wishes of her husband. It is also alleged that she would often go to her parents house without the permission of the husband and whenever it was objected to she used to rebuke him openly in public. It is further alleged that the appellant without the permission of her husband left her matrimonial home when the husband was away on his posting and went to her parents house. According to the husband, he took the village panchayats to her parents house thrice to bring her back but she refused to accompany his. It is on the basis of the these allegations that the husband filed a petition for divorce Under Section 13 of the Act on the ground that the wife had deserted him for a period of more than 2 years and that she treated him with cruelty.
3. In the written statement, the wife, admitted her marriage with the petitioner but denied the other allegations levelled against her by the husband. She alleged that she never disobeyed the petitioner and that the husband and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her. She also pleaded that the dowry brought by her. She also pleaded that the husband disliked her because of her looks and low status. She admitted that she had gone to her parents house but that according to her was on account of the fact that her husband used to beat her quite often.
4. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-”
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree for divorce on the grounds taken in the petition ? OPP
2. Relief.
After recording evidence of the parties and on a consideration thereof, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on the record to hold that the appellant had treated the husband with cruelty. As regards the second ground, the Court found that the wife had deserted the husband for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition and that she had no sufficient cause for doing the same. Consequently the petition for divorce was accepted and the marriage dissolved on the ground of desertion. It is against this order that the wife has come up in appeal.
5. Having heard counsel for the respondent who took me through the evidence on the record, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the trial court are unassailable and that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. The husband on his petition has alleged that the appellant was a short tempered lady and was constantly misbehaving with him and his family members. He did not plead any instance of misbehaviour in his petition nor did he lead any evidence in this regard. The general plea that the wife was constantly misbehaving is rather vague and not sufficient to hold that the husband was treated with cruelty. In regard to the plea of desertion, the wife herself while appearing as RW1 stated that she had been thrown out of the house after being beaten. She did not state in her examination-in-chief that the husband or his family members ever asked for dowry. Apart from her statement, there is no evidence on the record to show that she was thrown out of the house as alleged by her. Surprisingly, while leaving for her parents house, she left behind a female child who has been brought up by the father. On the other hand, the husband stepped into the witness box as PW1 and stated that his wife had deserted him without sufficient cause and that he took panchayats to her parents house for bringing her back but she refused to come back with him. His version has been supported by other witnesses as well. The trial court was right in holding that the appellant had deserted her husband without any sufficient cause. According to the wife, she had left the house about four years before the filing of the petition. Consequently, the findings recorded by the trial court are affirmed. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.