JUDGMENT
Sarojnei Saksena, J.
1. Wife has filed this appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (In short, the Act).
2. Uncontroverted facts are that the parties were married on March 5, 1988, according to Hindu rites at Village Attari, Tehsil and District Ropar. After the marriage they lived together till July 13, 1988.
3. Petitioner-appellant’s contention was that after marriage the behaviour of respondent No. 1 was cruel towards her. He demanded Rs. 10,000/- in dowry and he was not happy with the dowry given at the time of marriage. When she declined to bring Rs. 10,000/- from her father, she was again beaten by him. She further contended that respondent No. 1 is a man of loose character though he leveled serious allegations against her character without any basis. In fact, he is having illicit relations with Asha Devi respondent No. 2 who is his cousin brother’s wife. Petitioner-appellant saw the respondents many a time sitting on one cot in objectionable manner, cutting vulgar and indecent jokes and embracing each other. Once she saw them having illicit intercourse in bolted room. Despite her objection her husband failed to make any improvement in his conduct. He used to beat her off and on and ultimately on July 13, 1988, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. She then disclosed the facts of adultery and cruelty to her parents. Her father convened panchayats for her rehabilitation but respondent No. 1 refused to keep her. Hence she prayed for a decree of divorce on the grounds of adultery and desertion.
4. Respondent No. 1 filed his reply, wherein he denied the allegations of cruelty, desertion and adultery. According to him, after marriage she was living happily with him in the matrimonial home. On July 13, 1988, he left her at her parental home as it was the month of Sawan and customarily daughters go to their parental home in the month of Sawan. Thereafter he made many attempts to bring her back but she declined. Even her father refused to send her back. When his mother was ill, he went to take her but she refused to come along with him. Thus, according to him, the petitioner-appellant has deserted him without any reason any justifiable cause.
5. On these pleadings, three issues were raised. Parties adduced their evidence. The trial Court decided all the issues against the petitioner-appellant.
6. The first contention of the petitioner-appellant’s learned counsel is that as per order of this Court dated May 3, 1995, respondent-husband has not paid her maintenance and litigation expenses. Hence, according to him, on this Count alone,the appeal is liable to be accepted.
7. Admittedly, the respondent-husband has not paid maintenance or litigation expenses to the appellant, but on this ground a decree of divorce cannot be passed in appellant’s favour. This fact can be taken into consideration while deciding the merits of the appeal and the defence of the husband can be overlooked. For obtaining a decree of divorce, the appellant is required to prove any of the grounds enumerated in the Hindu Marriage Act.
8. The trial Court has decided the issue of desertion against the petitioner-appellant on the ground that the marriage was solemnised on March 5, 1988, and the petition for divorce was filed on December 13, 1989. Hence the petition to seek divorce on the ground of desertion is premature. Secondly, the trial Court has also mentioned that even the petitioner-appellant’s father has admitted that respondent-husband had come to take back the petitioner-appellant when his mother fell ill, but he was not prepared to send her with the respondent. Even the petitioner appellant refused to go to her matrimonial home. Hence on these counts this issue was decided against the petitioner-appellant. No infirmity can be found with this finding.
9. So far as the second issue is concerned, appellant’s learned counsel contended that the petitioner-appellant has categorically stated on oath that she saw respondents 1 and 2 in compromising position on 2/3 occasions. In the petition she has made certain averments that she saw both the respondents sitting on one cot in objectionable manner, cutting vulgar jokes and embracing each other. Once she saw them having illicit intercourse in a bolted room, but on oath she has simply stated that she saw them in compromising position after one week of her marriage. Except this solitary statement of the petitioner-appellant, there is no other evidence on record to substantiate this allegation. It is a serious allegation which the petitioner-wife is required to prove. The husband has denied this allegation.
10. No doubt, such acts of adultery are committed in close precincts and no person outside the house can be a witness to such acts, but to rely on such a statement of the wife, her conduct should be such as to convince the Court that whatever allegations she is making against her husband are believable. She has admitted on oath that she never made any complaint to her parents about this objectionable conduct of the husband, though in her petition she has alleged so. Even her father Lahauri Lal P.W.-3 has admitted that she never made such a complaint to him. He only stated that his daughter told him about bad character of the respondent-husband, which he has clarified in cross-examination, meaning thereby that he was not treating the petitioner-appellant properly. Bhagwan Dass P.W.-2 has tried to state in the cross-examination that petitioner-appellant’s parents informed him about the illicit relations of the respondents though her father Lahauri Lal P.W.-3 is totally silent about it.
11. Petitioner-appellant herself has admitted on oath that despite seeing their adulterous conduct, she never made a complaint about it either to his parents or to her parents. This conduct is very unnatural. No wife would ever tolerate such a conduct of her husband and if the husband behaves in that fashion the wife will first of all make a complaint with regard to that conduct to his parents and then to her own parents. It is noteworthy that in the reply respondent No. 1 has pleaded that the petitioner-appellant made such a complaint to Ropar police also. Ropar police made an enquiry but in that enquiry the petitioner-appellant never appeared. The petitioner-appellant has not filed any replication to deny these allegations made in the written statement, but on oath she has stated that the police never came to her village, never called her and she did not know the result of the complaint. Respondent-husband has stated on oath that the enquiry was conducted by the police, but as the complainant never appeared before the police, the complaint was filed. It is also noteworthy that in the petition the petitioner has alleged that on July 13, 1988, she was beaten and was turned out of the matrimonial home by respondent No. 1 and thereafter she was never called back by her husband, but on oath she has admitted that on July 13, 1988, she was left at her parental home by her husband and thereafter he never came to take her back. Despite her this statement her witness Bhagwan Dass P.W-2 has stated that on July 13, 1988, the petitioner-appellant was turned out by the respondent-husband. Lahauri Lai P.W. 3 has also admitted that in the month of July, 1988 respondent No. 1 left the petitioner-appellant at his house after beating her. Though the petitioner-appellant has also stated so, but in her cross-examination she has admitted that she went to her parental home in the month of Sawan i.e. July 13, 1988, with her husband and thereafter he never came back to her matrimonial home.
12. Respondent-Vidya Rattan has stated that thereafter he went to take her back but she declined to come back. Even when his mother fell ill, he went to bring her back but she again declined. Petitioner-appellant’s father has admitted these facts.
13. Petitioner-appellant has stated on oath that now it is not possible for her to reside in the company of the respondent as she apprehends danger to her life. There is no material on record to substantiate this alleged danger. Even her father Lahauri Lal P.W.-3 has stated that his daughter is not prepared to live with the respondent even if he gives surety of his good conduct. Respondent-Vidya Rattan has clearly stated that he is prepared to keep the petitioner-appellant with him.
14. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner-appellant went to her parental home along with respondent No. 1 in the month of Sawan of 1988. Thereafter she never came back to the matrimonial home, though respondent No. 1 tried to bring her back. The allegation of adultery is not proved. Such an allegation can easily be j levelled against any husband, but from the conduct of the petitioner-appellant it is apparent that this allegation is not at all believable. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved her on this point. The husband is willing to keep her but the wife is not inclined to go back to her matrimonial home. Hence, I find that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petitioner-appellant’s petition filed Under Section 13 of the Act.
15. Mr. Balhara lastly submitted that it is a case of broken marriage as since J July 1988 the parties are living separately. There is no chance of reconciliation. Petitioner-appellant is only aged 25 years. If divorce is granted, she may remarry and lead a settled life. To support this contention, he has relied on Smt. Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha, (1984) 4 S.C.C. 90 and Ramesh Chander v. Smt. Savitri, J.T. 1995(1) S.C. 362.
16. No doubt, when the marriage is emotionally and practically broken a decree of divorce can also be granted on that ground, but in this case even that situation has not yet arisen, because the husband is still willing to bring back the petitioner-appellant in the matrimonial fold. The wife is declining to go back without any reasonable cause or excuse. Hence on this ground also decree of divorce cannot be granted in her favour. Accordingly, the appeal being meritless is hereby dismissed.