Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.@mdashThe appellant-husband filed a di vorce petition on 11.8.1993 alleging, inter-alia, that marriage between the parties took place on 23.11.1988 and a son was bom out of this wedlock; the mother of the wife took away the wife on 12.7.1988 on the ground that as per custom, the wife had to visit her parents house; the information about the birth of the male child was given to the husband three days after the birth and the husband and his parents attended the ''Hawan'' ceremony and also required the wife to return to the matrimonial home, but she put off the matter without any reason.
2. The wife contested the petition and submitted that husband''s parents maltreated her for not bringing sufficient dowry, the wife had to live separate on account of conduct of husband and infact, the husband had deserted the wife.
3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, held that the husband failed to prove that the wife had deserted him or had treated him with cruelty and therefore, he was not entitled to divorce. It was observed that the demand of dowry was also supported by the statement of RW-3 Surinder Kumar Chopra and respondent-wife Smt. Ushama; during the course of proceedings. The husband never tried to keep the wife and he was only keen on getting the divorce; Dharminder (husband) admitted that he could not point out any misbehaviour on the part of the wife; there was no evidence of any cruelty by the wife; Vijay Kumar Sood, PW-3, who was mediator and produced as a witness by the husband, stated that he did not know whether the husband was willing to keep the wife; the evidence of the wife categorically showed that the wife was willing to live with the husband, but the husband was not wiling to keep her; the intention of the wife to was not to separate, but the husband was determined not to keep her and in these circumstances, it could not be held that the wife had deserted the husband.
4. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and vide proceedings dated 8.11.2000, it was recorded that no reconciliation was possible and the matter be decided on merits.
5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence on record has been ignored by the trial Court and no demand of dowry was proved; desertion ought to have been held to be proved by the trial court on the basis of evidence of the wife herself. Learned counsel also relied on a judgment in Teerth Ram v. Parvati Devi 1995(2) H.L.R. 232.
6. I have considered the submission of the counsel for the appellant and have pursued the record of the case.
7. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the trial Court that the husband was not able to prove the allegation of cruelty or desertion by the wife* the husband was not willing to keep the wife, while the wife was willing to live with the husband, from which inference of desertion had to be drawn against the husband and not the wife. The trial court has also discussed the evidence of the parties and from the evidence nothing has been shown as to how the wife had treated the husband with cruelty; no evidence has been shown as to whether any effort was made by the husband to bring the wife back to the matrimonial home. In view of this, the judgment cited by the counsel for the appellant does not advance his case, find any infirmity in the said fining.
For the above reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
