F.A.O. No. M-188 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. FAO No. M-188 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 19.5.2010 Hans Raj .... Appellant vs Subhash Kumari .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate,for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal, J. The husband is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 3.4.2010 passed the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, whereby he dismissed the petition of the appellant-husband filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage. Brief facts of the case are that the parties entered into nuptial-knot on 10.5.1974 , according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, the parties lastly resided together in Mohalla Jatwara, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari. One male child, namely, Ashok Kumar, was born on 14.4.1976. According to the appellant, from the first day of the marriage, the behaviour of the respondent wife with the appellant and his family members was cruel. It was alleged that after two months of the marriage, she told the appellant that she will not like to stay in a village. She always pressurized her for disposing of the entire property at Bawal and to shift to Rohtak. As the appellant did not accede to her demand of disposing of property at Bawal and shifting to Rohtak, she left Bawal at her own in September, 1975 and since then she is residing at Rohtak. As she never returned back, the appellant filed petition under Section 13 of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge for grant of a decree of divorce. Upon notice, the respondent wife filed written statement controverting the instances given by the appellant and stated that they last resided at Bawal upto 24.9.2005 and not upto September 1975, as stated by the appellant. It was also averred that she had never been humiliated and tortured as alleged by the appellant in the petition. It was also averred that she has not left the matrimonial home rather she has been turned out of the matrimonial home on 24.9.2005. F.A.O. No. M-188 of 2010 (2) Replication was filed by the appellant, reiterating his allegations in the petition. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek a decree of divorce on the grounds as alleged in the petition? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 3 Whether the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present petition against the respondent? OPR 4. Relief. The learned trial court after due analysis and appreciation of evidence led by the parties, dismissed the petition vide judgment and decree dated 3.4.2010. As the husband was not granted divorce, he has filed the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the paper-book. Admittedly, the marriage took place on 10.5.1974 according to the Hindu rites. A child was born on 14.4.1976. The petition for dissolution of marriage was filed on 23.10.2006 i.e. after three decades. The appellant could not prove the fact that the wife has deserted him in the year 1975. The documents produced by him in the form of ration cards, Ex. PW5/1 and Ex. PW5/B, could not prove the case of the appellant that the wife had deserted him whereas the evidence produced by the respondent wife in the form of school certificate, Ex. RW2/2, according to which Ashok Kumar, son of the appellant and respondent, was studied in Government Primary School, Bawal upto 1984 and thereafter shifted to maternal uncle's house at Rohtak for better education. It is also not the case of the appellant that Ashok Kumar resided with him upto 1984 at Bawal and thereafter, the wife has taken him away from him. The appellant has failed to prove his concocted story into a reality. It has also come in the evidence that the appellant has sold/ transferred his entire property to his brother, bhabhi and other family members, vide sale-deeds, Ex. R1 to Ex.R4 and when the respondent and her son Ashok Kumar came to know about the said transfer/sale, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by them. Due to this objection of the respondent and her son, the appellant has turned them out from the home on 24.9.2005. The respondent wife has proved the falsity of the appellant that she had deserted him in 1975 by producing the original record of pension claim in which he has nominated the respondent as his nominee in the year 1999. She has F.A.O. No. M-188 of 2010 (3) also proved on record copy of letter dated 29.11.2006 as Ex. RW7/4, letter dated 19.8.1999 as RW7/5. The witness, RW7 Mukesh Kumar, who brought the papers of pension pertaining to the appellant also proved the photographs of the appellant and respondent at pages 15, 16, and 17 of Ex. RW7/3 on the pension paper. What emerges from the material on record is that the divorce petition was filed in the year 2005 only when the wife and son were turned out from the house. Otherwise if the allegations made by the appellant are accepted to the extent that the wife had deserted him in the year 1975, there is no explanation for not approaching the court for 31 years as the divorce petition was filed in 2006. In the light of above discussion, no case is made out to interfere in the judgment and decree of the court below. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is dismissed as such. 19.5.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge