Judgment:
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. The appellant wife seeks to quash the order dated October 12, 1998 of Family Court No. 1, Jaipur whereby the decree of divorce was granted in favour of the respondent husband on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
2. Contextual facts depict that the respondent husband in the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act averred that he entered into the marriage with Gopali (appellant) on May 12, 1981 and from their wedlock a male child was born on February 10, 1982. The wife thereafter treated him cruelly and left his house in May, 1982 leaving behind the child. The application seeking restoration of conjugal rights was filed by the wife which stood disposed of in July, 1984 on the basis of compromise and she started residing with him. Since she treated him cruelly and deserted him, he was entitled to the decree of divorce.
3. The appellant wife submitted reply to the application denying the allegations levelled against her in the application. As many as three issues were framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Thereafter both the parties examined their witnesses. On hearing final submissions learned court below held that since the wife treated the husband cruelly and deserted him, he was entitled to decree of divorce.
4. We have heard the submissions advanced before us.
5. Having scanned the statements of Laxmi Narain, the respondent husband, we notice that all the alleged acts of cruelty were prior to 1986. After the parties lived as wife and husband continuously for a period of nine years and carried on their marital ties, it will be deemed that the husband condoned all those cruel acts allegedly committed by the wife prior to 1986.
6. We also find that there is no trustworthy evidence on-record to establish that the wife had deserted the husband. After the wife and husband continuously resided together For nine years after the compromise entered between them in 1986, it is difficult to believe that the wife deserted the husband without any reasonable cause. The husband from his testimony as well as from the evidence of other witnesses viz. Vasudev Prasad (PW. 2), Banwari Lal (PW. 3) and Om Prakash (PW. 4) could not establish that there was animus-deserandi Learned Court below In our opinion did not consider the evidence properly and committed Illegality In passing the decree of divorce.
7. For these reasons, the appeal stands allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated October 12, 1998 are set aside. There shall be no order as costs.