JUDGMENT
G.R. Majithia, J.
1. The wife has come up in appeal against the order of the Matrimonial Court granting divorce to the respondent/ husband on the ground of desertion against her.
2. The facts :–
The parties were married on December 9, 1973. A child was born in 1978 who died shortly thereafter. The wife left the matrimonial home on June 8, 1980. The wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. which was allowed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate and a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 175/- was granted to her. The order of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate was assailed in revision and the revisional court fixed the monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/-. The husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife on March 4, 1983 which ended in ex-parte decree against the wife on March 1, 1984. The wife assailed the ex-parte decree in appeal in this Court which was allowed by an order dated February 12, 1986. The ex-parte decree was set aside and the parties were directed to appear before the Matrimonial Court on March 10, 1986. The petition for restitution of conjugal rights was withdrawn by the husband on March 29, 1986 and the present petition for divorce was filed on April 29, 1986. The divorce was sought on twin grounds, namely, cruelty and desertion. The matrimonial Court found that the husband had succeeded in establishing that the wife had deserted him and on that basis allowed him the decree for divorce. The ground of cruelty could not be substantiated.
3. The wife has assailed the judgment of the matrimonial Court on the principal ground that it is the husband who did not want to rehabilitate her in the matrimonial home and she has always been willing to return to the consortium.
4. The husband’s version is that the wife left the matrimonial home on June 8, 1980 with his brothers and parents when he was not present in the house. She did not return to the matrimonial home thereafter and this conduct of the wife alone prima facie establishes that she does not want to return to the matrimonial home. The wife denied the allegations.
5. I summoned the parties and made an attempt to bring about a reapproachment between them. The wife was willing to leave for the matrimonial home from the court itself but the husband did not accept the suggestion made by the wife. The husband expressed his unwillingness to take back the wife on the ground that it was no more possible for him to live with her. Attempts for reconciliation were made by G.C. Mital, J. but without any success. The learned Judge in his order dated November 20, 1987 recorded the following note :–
“The impression left during reconciliation proceedings is that the husband is not straight-forward and is concealing material facts from the Court.”
6. The facts stated above fully justify the stand of the wife that it is the husband who is not rehabilitating her in the matrimonial home. He filed a petition for reconstitution of conjugal rights on March 4, 1983 and obtained an ex-parte decree on March 1,1984. The same was set aside by this Court but till then the husband pretended that he wanted the wife to return to the marital home. The intention of the husband was different than what was projected. Infact the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was moved primarily for the ulterior motive that decree when granted would remain unsatisfied and would furnish him a ground for divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act and there had been no restitution of conjugal rights for a period of one year or upward thereafter and the conduct of the husband to withdraw the petition for restitution of conjugal rights and to file the instant petition for divorce on the ground of desertion per se establishes that the husband was keen to get rid of the wife by some legal means. The wife’s version that after the marriage, the husband was pressurising her to bring money for purchasing the plots from her father has a ring of truth. Admittedly, the wife brought a sum of Rs. 3500/- from her father and paid it to the husband and he acknowledged this fact in his letter dated March 15, 1975 wherein it was stated that if he needed more money he would intimate his father-in-law. This letter was written in the year 1975 and gives an indication that the husband at times asked for money from her parents-in-law and it appears when the demand was not met, the husband felt perturbed as his ego was hurt and he took the drastic action of illtreating the wife forcing her to leave the matrimonial home. A Hindu wife will not leave the matrimonial home till the circumstances compel her to do so. The wife puts herself to social ridicule when she leaves the matrimonial home. A married woman when finds that she has no place in the matrimonial home and her plight is miserable there, invariably, it is her last resort to seek shelter in her parents house. Her life may not be in any manner comfortable there but she is saved of the mental agony any physical assault.
7. The finding of the learned trial judge under issue No. 2 is unsustainable. The matrimonial court did not correctly appreciate the evidence and the conduct of the husband disentitles him from claiming the relief sought for.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the matrimonial Court is set aside and the petition of the husband for the dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce is dismissed. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.