JUDGMENT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dated 4-5-1990 vide which he had dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. In the divorce petition, the petitioner sought divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The case of the petitioner as set up in the petition is that his wife had stayed with him for a few days after the marriage and she used to pay visit to her parental house very often for longer duration. Her behaviour was uncalled for. The respondent had married her daughter against his wishes. The allegations were denied by the respondent and had taken the plea that the petitioner-husband was alcoholic and used to treat the respondent with cruelty.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues :–
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce on the grounds mentioned in the petition ? OPP.
2. Relief.
The Trial Court decided the issue against the petitioner and dismissed the petition.
The challenge to the judgment is that the Court below had not appreciated the evidence on record.
4. I have perused the paper book.
5. The marriage between the parties was performed in the year 1967 and they had resided together at various stations upto February, 1985 and a daughter was born out of the wedlook in the year 1972. In the petition the petitioner alleges that his wife was cruel to him. But there is nothing in evidence to show that the respondent had at any stage resented to the behaviour of the petitioner nor any material to show that the petitioner ever filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal Rights. Though the marriage was performed in 1967, it is surprising that the divorce petition was instituted on 9-5-1988. Meaning thereby that the petitioner had no grouse against the respondent and had condoned the alleged lapses on the part of the respondent. From the evidence it is seen that no case for desertion or cruelty is made out. The witnesses produced by the petitioner, namely, Mehar Singh, Mange Ram and Bhane do not inspire confidence as in the petition it has not been mentioned anywhere that any Panchayat was convened by the petitioner. Therefore, the question of Bhane PW going to the Panchayat does not arise or the respondent’s refusal to reside with the petitioner in the Panchayat does not arise.
6. The petitioner has no where alleged in the petition that he was not at all happy with the engagement of his daughter with Narender Sharma nor it has been proved that the respondent had not consulted him at the time of marriage of her daughter.
7. The petitioner having failed to prove the ground of desertion and cruelty, the petition for divorce was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. There is no ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the Court below. The appeal is consequently dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 500/-.