FAO No. M-222 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. M-222 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.7.2009 Sharonjit Kaur .......... Appellant Versus Kuldeep Singh Mander ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. S.K. Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal by the appellant / wife is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.5.2008, passed by the learned District Judge, Kapurthala, dismissing the petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” ). The appellant wife sought decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act, on the pleading that the marriage between the parties was performed on 14.2.2004, by way of Anand Karaj ceremony. The parties cohabited at Phagwara but no child was born. It was claimed by the appellant, that the respondent and his family members maltreated her for bringing less dowry. It is further the case set up by the appellant, that the respondent / husband deserted her with an intention to bring the FAO No. M-222 of 2008 2 matrimonial relation to an end, as the respondent did not take steps to get visa for going to UK, as settled between the parties before the marriage. It was pleaded, that the parties are living separately since 17.2.2004. The petition was opposed and averments made in the petition were denied. It was not disputed that the appellant / wife left for England on 17.2.2004. It was also the case set up that visa was not granted to the respondent / husband, however, factum that no second try was made, was not disputed. The appellant / wife in support of her case appeared in the witness box as PW1 and reiterated her stand taken in the petition. She also examined PW-2 Hardeep Singh and Yudhvir Singh as PW-3 in support of the case set up. However, the respondent did not lead any evidence in support of defence. Though the evidence of appellant went unrebutted, the learned District Judge dismissed the petition primarily on the ground, that the allegations made, were not specific and that the allegations of maltreatment were made without material particulars, which could not be believed. The learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Matrimonial Court cannot be sustained as the allegations of maltreatment were specific and were supported by unrebutted evidence. This plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The allegations of maltreatment were general and lacked material particulars, therefore, the learned Matrimonial Court was right in deciding issue No.1 against the appellant. FAO No. M-222 of 2008 3 The learned counsel for the appellant thereafter contended, that it was pleaded and proved, that the parties were living separately since 17.2.2004. The evidence on record further proved, that the respondent / husband had withdrawn from the society without any reasonable cause with an intention to permanently bring an end to matrimonial alliance. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of this, referred to the pleadings and the evidence, where it was proved on record, that the husband had refused to join the company of the appellant without any reasonable cause and further he had no intention to resume matrimonial alliance. The evidence in this regard went unrebutted as the respondent did not lead any evidence to controvert this. The finding of the learned Matrimonial Court on issue No.2, therefore, deserves to be reversed. Issue No.2 is accordingly decided in favour of the appellant and it is held, that the respondent had deserted the appellant without any reasonable cause for a period of more than two years prior to filing of petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In view of the reversal of finding on issue No.2, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Matrimonial Court is set aside and the petition filed by the appellant wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce is allowed but with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. 27.7.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE