A.K. Awasthy, J.
1. Appellant/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1997 in Civil Suit No. 51-A/1982 (New No. 11-A/1989) passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge Ratlam, whereby the petition filed for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion was dismissed.
2. Admitted facts of the case are that the marriage in between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 29.1.1982. at Ajmer according to the Hindu rites and customs and that they have no issue from the wedlock. It is also not in dispute that the defendant wife has lived only for about two months with her husband after the marriage and, thereafter, on 30.5.1982 the respondent has left the matrimonial house at Ratlam and went back to her maternal house at Ajmer and, thereafter, she did not return back to live with her husband. It is also a common ground that the respondent has filed on application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ajmer. It is also the common ground that the appellant/petitioner has filed this petition for the divorce Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 17.8.1989.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the defendant was in habit of quarrelling and abusing the petitioner and his mother and she attempted to assault his mother and made the atmosphere of the house dirty and abnormal. That the defendant left the matrimonial house without the consent of the petitioner and she has refused to live with her husband.
4. The case of the defendant is that the petitioner has made the false allegations against her about creating nuisance and misbehaving with him and his mother. The defendant has alleged that the petitioner and his family members used to demand dowry and they were in habit of insulting and teasing her for not bringing enough dowry. That the defendant has not left the matrimonial house on her own accord, but the defendant was left at her maternal house by her husband and thereafter he has not cared to keep her back in the matrimonial house.
5. The learned Trial Court, after framing the issues, examined petitioner Alok Kumar (RW. 1), Manoj Kumar (P.W. 2), Rajkumar (P.W. 3), Moolchand Jain (P.W. 4) and from the opposite side defendant Rajni Bala Jain. The learned Trial Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed within six months after the marriage and as such the ground of desertion is not made out. The learned Trial Court has also held that the allegation of cruelty by the defendant are not proved.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Trial Court has erred in holding that ground of desertion and cruelty are not proved and that the appellant and respondent are living separately for more than 13 years and as the wife has not made any attempt to resume the relationship the decree of divorce should be passed on the ground of desertion.
7. It is laid down under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act that the marriage can be dissolved if the spouse has deserted the petitioner for continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The petitioner has filed the petition for divorce within six months of the defendant wife leaving the matrimonial house. Consequently, the ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act is not available to the petitioner as the desertion was not more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
8. The petitioner (P.W. 1) has stated that his wife is from rich family and as she was not prepared to live with the appellant as his status was much below than the status of the family of his wife. Alok Kumar (P.W. 1) has further stated that his wife was in habit of talking improperly with him and she used to utter filthy abuses. Manoj (P.W. 2) has stated that the house of the petitioner is near to his house and his wife was unable to adjust with the petitioner whose status was much below than the status of the family of his wife. Rajkumar (P. W. 3) and Moolchand (P. W. 4) have also made the statements corroborating the averments of the petitioner. The allegations made by the defendant against his wife are not of serious nature. Such petty grounds do not construed the cruelty. Such trivial allegations against the wife can never and should never be the ground of cruelty and as such the learned Trial Court has rightly held that the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion deserves to be dismissed.
9. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.