Mohit Patel vs Meela Patel

Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 8-4-2022 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bemetara, in civil suit No.35-A/2020 whereby the application preferred by the appellant/husband under Section 13(1)(ib)(vi) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1955’) for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and renouncing the world by entering into religious order was dismissed. The husband is in appeal before this Court.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the parties were married on 10-7-2016 as per the rituals in village Chuhka, District Bemetara and thereafter they had lived together for about couple of months. Subsequently, the wife has called her brother and returned to her parental village. Though the husband had gone on various occasions to take back the wife, but she refused to join his company. The husband further pleaded that the wife has joined the institution run by Asaram Bapu namely; Hari Om and she is not interested in the married life and behave like a monk. He pleaded that after the ring ceremony also the wife has informed him that she is not interested in married life and on the pressure of her parents she agreed for marriage. Husband also pleaded that without any plausible reason the wife is residing separately since 2016 and deprived the husband from the conjugal rights.

While denying the aforesaid contention of the husband, it is pleaded by the wife that after the marriage she stayed with the husband for about one year and during such period the husband used to come late in the night that too in an inebriated condition and also used to abuse and assault her. The husband is also in the bad habit of consuming sexual medicines and thereafter made physical relation in a cruel manner. When she opposes, the behaviour of the husband aggravated. Her in-laws also have not paid any attention in respect of such conduct of the husband. They also abused and blamed her. According to the wife, whenever she talks over mobile phone with her close relatives, the in-laws always used to record such conversation and forced her not to go to her parental village. The wife also pleaded that when she informed about the conduct of the husband to her uncle father-in-law (काका ससुर), he also supported the bad habits of her husband about consuming liquor and stated that now a days it is common and advised her to become monk (साध्वी). Husband used to threaten her that if she opposes his habits, he will bring another lady to the house. The wife pleaded that the husband has also illicit relation outside the marriage. Father of the wife namely; Pilaram (DW-2) had gone to convince the husband and also advised him to improve his conduct. Thereafter, some relatives of the husband came to her parental home to bring her back then she made a complaint about bad habits of the husband and stated that whenever the habits of the husband changed and he became a good man she will join the company of the husband.

On the basis of pleadings, learned Family Court has framed the issues on the ground of desertion and whether the wife has renounced the world by entering into religious order and after evaluating the evidence both the issues have decided in negative and dismissed the application preferred by the husband for grant of decree of divorce. Thus, this appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband would submit that the wife has stayed with the husband only for a short of period of couple of months. From the very beginning the wife is not interested in the married life; joined the institution run by Asaram Bapu namely; ‘Hari Om’; and deserted the husband. The said fact was proved by the evidence available on record, therefore, the finding arrived at by the learned family Court is perverse. The learned Court below has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. Therefore, under the circumstances the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife, per contra, would support the impugned judgment and decree. He would submit that there was no animus deserendi by the wife to leave the husband permanently, as the husband himself is at fault and was in the bad habit of consuming excessive liquor and used to come late in the night. Due to such conduct on the part of the husband, the wife is living separately. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Family Court is well merited and needs no interference of this Court.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

The wife in her deposition at para 8 categorically deposed that during her stay at matrimonial home she has tried to convince her husband about his bad habits, but there was no improvement. Husband used to come to the house late in the night at 12 o’ – 1 o’ clock and roaming in the night. According to the wife, the husband used to come to the house in an intoxicated condition and behave with her in a cruel manner. The husband has also relations outside the marriage. Due to such bad habits, when the husband and other close relatives came to her parental home to bring her back, she refused to join the company of the husband unless he improved his conduct and leave such bad habits. At para 15 of her cross-examination, the wife categorically denied that she is not willing in the married life and replied that if she has no interest in the marriage, then why she has entered into married life. The wife admitted that she has joined to the institution run by Asaram Bapu and the said fact has also been admitted by her father at para 12 of his cross-examination. Only the fact that if any person joined to an institution, it cannot be inferred that such person renounced the world by entering into any religious order.

Considering the evidence available on such score, we are of the view of that the grounds raised by the appellant/husband have not been proved.

In the matter of Savitri Pandey v Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73, the Supreme Court held thus at para 10 :

“10. To prove desertion in matrimonial matter it is not always necessary that one of the spouses should have left the company of the other as desertion could be proved while living under the same roof. Desertion cannot be equated with separate living by the parties to the marriage. Desertion may also be constructive which can be inferred from the attending circumstances. It has always to be kept in mind that the question of desertion is a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of each case.

Reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is manifest that the wife has assigned sufficient reason for living separately and, as such, she has no animus deserendi to leave the husband permanently, therefore, such ground has also not been proved by the husband. The learned Family Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record. There is no infirmity or illegality. The impugned judgment and decree is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court.

Ex-consequenti, the appeal, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

A decree be drawn accordingly.