Sunita Devi vs Ramesh Chand

Sureshwar Thakur, J

The rendition, of, dis­affirmative findings, upon, H.M.A Petition No. 10 of 2006, hence, by the learned District Judge, Una, H.P., has caused agitation, in, the petitioner herein, the legally wedded wife of the respondent herein, and, hence has led her, to, institute thereagainst, hence, the instant appeal before this Court.

The petitioner, through, a petition cast before the learned District Judge, Una, had strived, for, annulment of marital ties with the respondent herein, on, the ground of physical cruelty, becoming encumbered, upon, her by her husband/respondent herein, and, also, on the ground of her husband rather willfully deserting, and, abandoning, her, matrimonial company.

The learned counsel, for, the aggrieved petitioner, does not contest, the returning of negative findings, upon, the pleaded factum appertaining, to, encumbrance(s) of physical cruelty, upon, the petitioner herein, and, arising from her husband, subjecting her, to, physical beatings, and, also his being a habitual drunker, and, his ill­maintaining both the petitioner and her child, nor he contests the returning, of, findings, qua mental cruelty being hence not becoming visited, upon, the petitioner herein, and, becoming sparked, from, purported demands, of, dowry being made upon her.

Be that as it may, the learned counsel, for the petitioner, has made, a vehement address, before this Court, (i) that despite, the respondent not meteing any denial, vis­a­vis, his legally wedded wife, remaining away from his matrimonial company, for, about 10 years, and, also his further making an admission, that, his not making any assiduous efforts, to, retrieve her hence therefrom, to, his matrimonial company, (ii) though rather comprising candid, and, potent evidence, vis­a­vis, animus deserendi rather inhering, in, the respondent herein, (iii) thereupon, the non­meteing, of, deference thereto, by the learned District Judge, and, rather his proceeding to return findings adversarial to the petitioner, vis­a­vis, the issue appertaining therewith, being grossly unmeritworthy.

The afore submission has immense vigour, and, warrants validation, as, the afore prolonged duration, of, the petitioner, remaining away, from her matrimonial home, and also the evident wants, of, makings of serious strivings hence by the respondent, to, retrieve her to her matrimonial home, is perse magnificatory, of, his carrying the requisite animus deserendi. Consequently, when he has also omitted, to, file a petition, for, divorce, on, anvil, of, the afore prolonged duration, of, the petitioner, remaining away, from, her matrimonial home rather being without his consent and also against his wishes nor with his filing any petition seeking therethrough rendition, of, a decree qua restoration of, conjugal ties (i) contrarily when he acquiesces vis­a­vis the afore(s), thereupon reiteratedly his afore acquiescence, does bring forth evidence, in, display of his carrying, the, requisite animus deserendi, and, thereupon the declining of relief, to, the petitioner herein, on anvil thereof, was unmeritworthy.

In view of the above, there is merit in the petition, and, the same is accordingly allowed. Impugned verdict is quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.