JUDGMENT
Lingaraja Rath, J.
1. The petition seeking dissolution of marriage by the husband-appellant having been dismissed, this appeal has been preferred. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.6.1985. The appellant in his petition seeking divorce stated the marriage to have been consummated and later the respondent to have also joined him at his residence in Cuddapah. IT is also stated that the appellant’s mother asked the respondent to go to her parents, house in the month of Ashadham as the family custom but she refused to go but that the respondent used to be absent from the house mostly taking advantage of the petitioner-appellants’ absence for about 25 days in a month in connection with his official duties. The appellant works in Flying Squad of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Later on the appellant found growth of moustach, and beard on the face of the respondent and on being questioned the respondent admitted the fact and had stated that she was taking care to cover such growth by application of cosmetics. The appellant felt cheated and fraud to have been practised over him at the time of the marriage because of which misunderstandings arose between the parties. There was no cordial relationship and in the month of October, when the maternal uncle of the respondent came to his house, there was heated exchange between him and the mother and brother of the appellant and the maternal uncle because of such features on the face of the respondent. The maternal uncle, Ananda Rao took away the respondent to Chittoor without the consent of the appellant or his family members and since then i.e., 20.10.1995 the respondent had deserted him and had not come back inspite of his efforts.
2. The petitioner was resisted by the respondent denying the allegations. The fact of the appellant’s remaining away from home for 25 days in a month and the respondent’s going away to her parents’ house during that period and the fact that the respondent had grown beard and moustache were specifically denied. The respondent instead stated that the appellant used to remain absent two to three days in a week and their marriage having consummated, the appellant was having a satisfactory marital life with the respondent. During the days in which he was at home was also having the company or the respondent. He never raised any objection either before or after the marriage regarding any growth on the face of the respondent.
The marriage had been performed only after the respondent had been interviewed not only by the members of the family but also specifically by the appellant himself in a separate room. Shortly after the marriage, the appellant and the respondent and his younger brother and his wife had also gone on a honeymoon trip to South India and there also the marriage between the parties was consummated. The appellant’s mind was poisoned against the respondent by his mother and brother who wanted him to marry a second time and get high benefits out of it. She had never willingly left the house of the appellant and several attempts of mediation at the instance of her father to bring her back to the marital home had failed. The petition for divorce had been filed only as a retaliatory action to a notice issued by her on 1.8.1987 through Advocate requesting the appellant to come and take her as she was ready to join his conjugal society of her lord meaning the appellant but that the appellant sent a reply with fallse allegations. Thereafter she filed O.P. 66 of 1987 for restitution of conjugal rights. The petition for divorce was filed thereafter as a counter-blast.
3. Both sides examined witnesses and also filed documents. The learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddapah, on an analysis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, held there to have not been any desertion on the part of the respondent. No grounds for divorce having been made out, the application was dismissed. Since, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties who have taken us through the evidence, we agree with the conclusions reached by the learned Subordinate Judge, it is not necessary for a detailed analysis of the evidence to be reflected here as was decided by the Apex Court in Girijanandini v. Bijendra Narain, . We would hence briefly refer to the material features of the evidence to support the conclusion reached.
4. The main grouse of the appellant seems to be that the respondent had developed masculine features of growth of beard and moustache for which he found a conjugal life to be not possible. The learned Subordinate Judge has recorded that, while the respondent was deposing as R.W. 1 he had closely watched her and had found no such features on her. That was precisely the very case of the respondent in the counter filed that a glance at her in the open Court would reveal of her having been victimised by the appellant and his mother and brother for different reason. The respondent’s witnesses also categorically stated about the absence of any such features on her. PW 2, who is the brother of the appellant, deposed that just before ten days the respondent left the house of the appellant, he came to know through the appellant that she had growth of beard and moustache but that he did not observe such masculine features on her even ten days before she left the house. There is also overwhelming evidence that the marriage, which was negotiated one, had been performed only after not only the members of the family of the appellant but also he himself had occasion to watch the girl at close quarters. The appellant in accordance with his specific request had been allowed a personal talk with the respondent in a separate room where they had exchanged their views on the marriage and after that only the appellant had signified his consent after some days. This fact was denied by the appellant, but the learned Subordinate Judge rightly placed reliance on Ex. B.3 to hold that the stand of the appellant was false since in Ex. B.3, a letter written by the brother of the appellant to the father of the respondent, he regretted the inconvenience caused to the respondent and the father R.W. 2, because of the exchange of views between the appellant and the respondent during the visit of his brother and mother and that had been done only to let the respondent know clearly to their family position and proper understandings. The marriage was admitted to have been consummated between the parties and there were several occasions in which both the appellant and the respondent had sexual company with each other. Never did once the appellant object to any such features on the respondent. The mother of the appellant stated in her evidence that there is nothing against the respondent and that such growth of beard and moustache was not a major mistake or defect. She had advised the appellant to adjust and live with her. As a matter of fact, the appellant himself stated that except such defect which he found in the respondent, there is no other defect in her.
5. Even if the allegation of the respondent having been grown the features of moustache and beard would have been correct, that by itself is not a ground for divorce. If the appellant did not want to marry the girl, whom he had closely observed, it was open for him to have refused to marry her. It was his very case that he noticed such growth much after the marriage and yet the case was filed pleading fraud to have been practised upon him which was never substantiated. Such a defect, even if it would have been correct would at best be a hormonal defect which the appellant should have taken care to be medically attended to, but there is nothing in evidence that he ever took any steps in that regard. Instead he was bent upon not having the company of the respondent. The fact of voluntary desertion by the respondent has never been proved and there is no evidence to that effect. Instead it was the evidence of R.W. 2 that he had persistently tried to send back the respondent but that the appellant never showed any interest. There is no evidence for the coming that the appellant ever made any attempt to bring back the respondent. Indeed the apathy of the appellant is apparent by the response he showed to the notice issued by the respondent on 1.8.1987 for restitution of conjugal rights by coming up with a petition of divorce. Thus whereas the conduct of the respondent shows her to have been keen to join the society of the appellant and consequently shows she never to have deserted the appellant, it is on the other hand, the appellant who has willingly deserted her.
6. For all such reasons, we do not find any occasion to interfere with the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs.