Surendra Kumar @APPELLANT@Hash Shrimati Mayadevi

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the trial court record.

The appellant sought divorce pleading cruelty and desertion. 3. In the written statement filed the respondent raised counter claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

Vide impugned decision dated 30.06.2017 the appellant’s petition seeking divorce has been dismissed and the respondent’s counter claim for restitution of conjugal rights has been decreed.

The case of the appellant was that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.04.2008. Attitude of the respondent from the day one of the marriage was hostile. As per him, the respondent told him that she was forced to marry. The respondent used to abuse him as also his parents.

In spite of family elders having counselled the respondent, her attitude did not change. She would throw tantrum to visit her parents. He then realized that the respondent had an eye sight problem. He took her to the doctor and learnt that the respondent could turn blind any day. As per him, he was cheated into marriage because respondent’s eye problem was not disclosed to him. The respondent left her matrimonal house on 25.04.2008.

Family elders intervened once again on 26.07.2009 but the dispute could not be resolved. Hence, the petition.

In the written statement filed, the respondent denied the allegations made against her. She denied that she had any eye problem. She pleaded that she was forced to leave the matrimonial house and she is ready to live with the appellant as his wife. She pleaded that she had passed Senior Secondary School Examination. She pleaded that the appellant used to take her unnecessarily to the hospital for eye check up. She pleaded that the appellant left her at her parental house stating that till her eye becomes normal, she should stay with her parents.

At the trial, the appellant examined himself as witness and respondent examined herself as witness. As regards the appellant, he simply reiterated the facts pleaded by him in the petition seeking divorce but could give no particulars of the date when respondent abused him or the parents. He admitted in the crossexamination that he had no papers to justify his stand that the respondent was suffering from an eye ailment. He stated in his cross-examination that it was not he who left the respondent in the house of her parents. He states that with his consent, she went to the parental house telling him that when her eye sight would be normal she will return. On further cross examination whether the appellant ever went to the house of his in-laws to bring respondent back or find out about her health, the appellant admitted that he did not do so. On further being cross-examined, he admitted that it was he who left the respondent in her parental house. He denied the suggestion that the respondent was ready to live with him. He categorically stated that if the respondent wants to live with him, he is not ready to keep her.

Vide impugned decision, on the issue of cruelty, learned judge has held that except for self serving statements, no evidence has been led by the appellant. The so called elders who had intervened to resolve the dispute have not been examined. The learned Judge, Family Court has centered on the issue concerning the respondent having bad eye sight.

Indeed from the pleadings of the parties and the evidenceled it emerges that the appellant abandoned the respondent because he thought that she had bad eyesight. Appellant has no proof. Thus his claim that the respondent left the matrimonial house to return after her eyes became normal but she never returned is not proved.

As noted herein-above during the cross-examination, the appellant stated that the respondent went to her matrimonial house with her consent stating that she would return when her eye sight becomes normal. As per the respondent, she was left at her parental house by the appellant himself alleging that till her eye sight becomes normal, she should stay there.

Now if the respondent’s eye sight is normal, the question of her going to parental house and staying there till her eye sight becomes normal does not arise. It is an obvious case where the appellant falsely alleged against the respondent that on account of her eye sight being bad she should stay at her parental house. Thus the appellant forced the respondent to leave the matrimonial house without any justifiable cause.

The impugned decision declining divorce and granting decree of restitution of conjugal rights is correct.

Both the appeals are dismissed.