IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.: 246 of 2005 Date of decision : 31.05.2011 Parveen Kumari …Appellant. Versus Pawan Kumar …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. J.R.Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgement of the learned District Judge, Hamirpur whereby he allowed the petition filed by the respondent-husband and granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband and against the wife dissolving their marriage on the ground that the wife had deserted her husband for a period of more than two years. 2. The undisputed facts are that the parties married on 28.01.2001 and resided within the jurisdiction of District Hamirpur. According to the petitioner they had lived together merely for three months when the father of the wife came to the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes. 2 matrimonial home on 28.5.2001 and took the wife to her parental home. At that time it was assured that she would return after eight to ten days but in fact she never came back to join the company of her husband. It is alleged that the husband and his family members made repeated attempts to bring back the wife but she did not return to her matrimonial home and therefore, the husband was compelled to file the petition seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion. 3. The respondent-wife admitted the marriage. According to her she lived in the matrimonial home for six months. She also alleged that she was illtreated and harassed by her husband and in-laws. The parties led evidence and the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the wife had deserted her husband. 4. Four witnesses were examined by the husband i.e. he himself, his father and two members of their village. According to the testimony of these witnesses the father of the wife had come to their village and took his daughter back. It is also apparent that the wife was working as a teacher and used to go to teach at her parental village which is about six kilometers from her matrimonial home. According to the 3 husband and his witnesses on a number of occasions they had tried to get the wife back to the matrimonial home but to no avail. 5. The stand of the wife in her written statement was that she lived in her matrimonial home for about six months and during that period she was maltreated and harassed for dowry. She was asked to give divorce but when she refused she was beaten up and turned up from the house. However, while appearing in the witness box she gave a totally different version. According to her for six months after the marriage the husband started beating her and raising demands of dowry and then she was turned out. The evidence led is totally inconsistent with the pleadings. It is pertinent to mention that even if the other statements of the husband and his witnesses are not accepted to be correct, they all in one breath have stated that on 28.5.2001 the respondent-wife was taken by her father to her parental home with a promise that she would return after one week. There is virtually no cross-examination on this aspect of the matter. There is no suggestion that the father was forced to take away his daughter. In fact, RW-3 has clearly stated that the respondent was called for and taken from the 4 matrimonial home by her father. This clearly proves that the father took away his daughter on 28.5.2001. Till that time there is no allegation of cruelty and no reason has been given as to why she left the matrimonial home. She after such withdrawal from her matrimonial home is residing in her parental house. Thus it stands proved on record that the wife voluntarily left the house of her husband without any cause or excuse and without any justification whatsoever. She has withdrawn from the society of her husband without any reason; this would amount to desertion. 6. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 31st May, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.