D.M. Dharamadhikari, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the husband against the order dated 23-1-1991 of the Trial Court refusing the grant of decree of divorce to the husband on the ground of desertion.
2. The marriage took place on 8-5-1965 at Mandla. At the time of marriage the wife was employed and is still in employment in collectorate at Bandla. The husband was unemployed. He got employment first at Mandla in the year 1986. Since August 1986 he is in employment in N.T.P.C. in Vindhyachal in district Sidhi. The case of the husband is that the wife deserted him in March 1986 and inspite of repeated efforts refused to join him at Sidhi where he is posted.
3. The wife contested the petition for divorce taking a plea that she suffered ill-treatment from the husband and members of his family on demand of dowary.
4. The learned Judge of the Trial Court did not accept the case of the husband that the wife was guilty of desertion.
5. It is to be mention that the husband in support of his case examined himself and 3 more witnesses including his father. The wife did not examine herself and did not lead any evidence. On the date fixed for evidence a prayer for adjournment made on her behalf was turned down by the Trial Court stating that the cause shown for seeking adjournment was not reasonable.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the husband in this appeal submits that since both husband and wife are employed at two different places test reasonableness is to be applied as was done in the case of Smt. Vibha v. Dinesh Kumar Srivastava reported in 1991 M.P.L.J. 975. It is true that where husband and wife are employed in service at two different places, the nature of married life is dependent upon nature of employment. In such case attitude of the spouses should be to co-operate each other in leading a married life as is reasonably possible in the circumstances of their employments. The husband and his witnesses in the witness box stated that all efforts on the part of husband to persuade the wife to lead married life with him failed. The conduct of the wife, according to the husband shows that she has foresaken him with intention not to return to marital home.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the wife, apart from supporting the order of the Trial Court and the reasoning contained therein submitted that the reasonable request of the wife for adjournment of the date for recording evidence was wrongly turned down by the Trial Court. According to her Counsel, earlier the case was adjourned on several dates and no serious prejudice would have been caused if one more adjournment was granted. In this appeal, before me the case was listed on fixed dates for attempts of reconciliation between the parties. Although the case was twice listed for that purposes, no adjustment could be reached between the parties On all dates the husband remained present but the wife remained absent for some reason or the other.
8. Looking to the nature of evidence led in the case and on reading the order sheets of the Court below as also the judgment passed by the Trial Court, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed in favour of the husband. The husband is entitled to grant of decree of divorce on the ground of desertion by the wife. At the outset I find that the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge of the Trial Court in refusing decree in unsustainably the husband in the witness box expressed as willingneas to accent her in his home and to live with the wife could not be taken to be a circumstance to inter that there was no animus deserendi on the part of the wife
9. In this case the wife did not examine herself and did not prove her allegations made against the husband that she suffered ill treatment from him or members of his family. The request made on behalf of the wife in this appeal that the case be remitted to the Trial Court to afford her an opportunity to lead evidence. In my opinion, cannot be granted The learned Judge of the Trial Court duly considered the ground on which adjournment was sought and has passed the reasoned order staling that her inability to produce evidence because there was no escort to accompany her from Mandla to Jabalpur was not acceptable. The wife is employed at Mandla which is about 80 Kms. from Jabalpur.
10. Even the conduct of wife as disclosed from the order sheets or the Trial Court shows that she was not very sincere in the matter of leading evidence. Even in this Court she did not take part in attempts of reconciliation and in working out a via-media or mutual adjustment in residuing reasonably practicable married life with-the husband.
11. As I have commented above since both of them are employed at two distant places, it is only with mutual cooperation that a reasonably happy married life is possible between them.
12. The attitude of the wife as disclosed from her conduct in the Trial Court as also in the Trial Court at also in this Court is of complete apathy. There is no justification for remanding the case to the Trial Court to enable the wife to lead her evidence.
13. The Trial Court was fully justified in refusing to adjourn the case at the request of the wife. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 23-1-1991 is hereby set aside. The decree of divorce is granted in favour of the husband. The decree be drawn accordingly. In the circumstances I make no order as to cost.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us