When husband is entitled to get divorce on ground of desertion by wife?
Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any evidence on record, which would prove that appellant was not able to join the company of her husband due to an act/misconduct on his part. A perusal of Ex. A1, i.e. judgment dated 07.05.1982, under Section 9 of the Act reflects the plea of the appellant that her husband is living in open adultery. The allegation has been held to be an afterthought and a cooked up story as her allegations remain unsubstantiated. It was specifically held that appellant wife left the company of her husband without any reasonable cause. The same allegations were levelled by her in the present proceedings, under Section 13 of the Act but once again remain unsubstantiated. It was rightly held, by the learned trial Court, that appellant has deserted the respondent without reasonable cause and that she refused to comply with decree dated 07.05.1982, passed under Section 9 of the Act. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that provisions of Section 23 of the Act are applicable in the present case is unacceptable in the present factual matrix.
The argument that the decree under Section 9 was never executed by the appellant is devoid of any merit, hence unacceptable. A Full Bench of this Court in Bimla Devi's case (supra) has clearly observed that only a symbolic execution of a decree, is provided for. There is no provision by which the physical custody of the spouse who has suffered the decree can be made over to the spouse who obtained the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, it cannot be said that lack of bona fides on the part of the respondent is reflected due to this reason. The respondent-husband has succeeded in proving desertion on the part of the appellant, who has been unable to prove any reasonable or sufficient cause to withdraw from the company of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree which calls for interference by this Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
FAO No. 5-M of 1994 (O&M)
Decided On: 07.01.2016
Appellants: Lakhvinder Kaur
Vs.
Respondent: Gurmel Singh
Vs.
Respondent: Gurmel Singh
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Rajive Bhalla and Lisa Gill, JJ.
Citation:2016 (3) ALLMR(JOURNAL)94
