CIVIL APPEAL None on 20 December 1989

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ATCHANDIGARH

FAO No. 151-M of 1996 Date of Decision : February 24, 2009

Sunil Kumar

Versus

.......... Appellant

Neelam

...... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA

Present :Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocatefor the appellant.

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocatefor the respondent.

****

VINOD K. SHARMA, J.

Appellant-husband by way of the present appeal has challengedthe judgment and decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge,Kurukshetra dismissing his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu MarriageAct.

Appellant-petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of theHindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on theplea that the marriage between the parties was performed on 8.10.1989according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Ambala City.

After the marriage the parties resided at Pehowa, DistrictKurukshetra but the marriage was not consummated and, thus, no child was born out of the wedlock. On the first night the respondent wife declared tothe petitioner that her marriage with the petitioner was performed againsther wishes and on account of threat of her father of committing suicide incase of her refusal to marry the appellant-petitioner.

It was also the case set up by the appellant-husband thatrespondent-wife claimed that she had waited for more than 40 years tomarry a boy of her choice but her desire has not been fulfilled and,therefore, she would not permit the petitioner to consumate the marriage.

Appellant further claimed that respondent did not resumecohabitation with the appellant-petitioner. The appellant did not disclosethis fact to his parents on the next morning and rather tried to persuade therespondent so that she should not create tensions and problem, and shouldbehave liken an Indian lady and to forget her past life. The respondent wifeinstead of mending herself, became arrogant, harsh and cruel to thepetitioner as well as his family members. Thereafter father of the respondentwas called and everything was made clear to him but nothing tangible cameout. The appellant-petitioner was posted at Dhariwal, as an Inspector inBorder Security Force, which was terrorist affected area and, therefore, hewas granted one week's leave for the marriage and he on expiry of leavewent back to his duty at Dhariwal. It is case of the appellant that themarriage was never consummated.

The respondent left the matrimonial home and went to herparents house at Ambala City. It was only on persuasion of father of thepetitioner and other relations, who visited the house of respondent at Ambala City, it was decided that the petitioner should keep the respondentat Dhariwal for a week and accordingly in the month of December, 1989respondent went to Dhariwal where the petitioner was posted. Theappellant-petitioner made arrangement for her stay in a house of some onebut during her stay at Dhariwal also, the behaviour of the respondentremained the same. It is also allegation of the appellant-petitioner that heinvited some officers of the B.S.F. to celebrate but respondent refused toattend the celebration which was a very humiliating for the appellant.

It is also the allegation that when appellant invited some of hiscolleagues the respondent refused to join them and slept in a roomcomplaining of headache and this cruel act of the respondent forced thepetitioner to spend sleepless nights. Even during her stay at Dhariwal shedid not permit the appellant-petitioner to consummate the marriage asrespondent gave threat that she would commit suicide if she was forced tolive with him. Only after a week respondent forced him to drop her atAmbala City.

The appellant claimed that on persuasion of his parents he tookone month's leave for the period 20.12.1989 to 20.1.1990 when father of therespondent brought her to Pehowa and advised the respondent to live like apious lady but all in vain. On the first night during their stay at Pehowaduring the vacations, the respondent wife wiped out her 'Sindoor' and 'Bindi'affixed on her forehead and broke all the bangles with a threat that ties ofthe marriage with the appellant-petitioner had been broken. The respondentdid not allow the petitioner to touch her body with the same threat of committing suicide. In view of the allegations made above, it was pleadedthat the life of the appellant was turned into hell. The respondent stayed atPehowa only for ten days during the leave of one month. He again reportedfor his duty on 20.1.1990.

The respondent-thereafter was again brought to Pehowa after agreat persuasion by the father of the petitioner with the help of a Panchayatconsisting of Durga Dass, Pawan Kumar and Surender Pal but therespondent again left the matrimonial home in the month of March, 1990without permission of the father of the petitioner and she further made clearto the father of the petitioner that she should make arrangement for secondmarriage of the petitioner as she would not return to the matrimonial home.Thus, it was claimed that respondent deserted the appellant-petitioner sinceMarch, 1990 without any reasonable cause. Thus, divorce was sought on theground of cruelty and desertion.

The petition was contested by the respondent-wife. In thewritten statement it was contended that appellant had no locus standi tomaintain the petition. Further he was estopped from filing the presentpetition by his own act and conduct. It was also pleaded that appellant hadconcealed the true and material facts from the Court.

The respondent claimed that the marriage between the partieswas arranged through matrimonial column in the newspaper after dueverifications and satisfaction regarding the background and status of boththe families. The marriage was performed in a traditional form with greatpomp and show and sufficient dowry was given by the father of the respondent. It was asserted that the marriage between the parties wasconsummated and the parties cohabited on the first night. The respondent onthe next day of the marriage felt that parents of the petitioner were nothappy with the dowry given by the parents of the respondent and theirbehaviour was not good towards the respondent because they startedtaunting the respondent.

After the marriage the appellant-petitioner stayed at Pehowawhere they enjoyed all types of family life including physical relationbetween the two. It was further the case of the respondent that after thepetitioner left Pehowa for his place of posting at Dhariwal, behaviour of thefamily of the petitioner was totally changed and they started misbehavingand insulting her and further declared that they have got no sufficientaccommodation to keep the respondent at Pehowa and, therefore, they askedthe respondent to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/- so as to enable them to raisefurther construction. The respondent pleaded her helplessness which madebehaviour of the parents of the appellant-petitioner to the respondent morerude. Brother of the respondent visited Pehowa to see her on 22.11.1989and it was the parents of the appellant who sent the respondent with herbrother and told her that she should not come back at her own and that whenthe petitioner would come, he will bring her to the matrimonial home.

In December, 1989 respondent went to Dhariwal i.e. the placeof posting of appellant and stayed with him for ten days. During her stay atDhariwal appellant assured her that he will try for a family station andwould keep the respondent there and asked the respondent to wait for some time more. She was left at Pehowa but the parents of the petitioner turnedher out from matrimonial home in March, 1990 in three clothes.

The respondent claimed that she was ready and willing to gowith the appellant and it was the appellant who deserted her on the groundthat he was posted in sensitive area and a non-family station. He also gavefalse assertion that respondent would be kept with him whenever he wouldbe posted at a family station.

On merit, it was pleaded that the appellant and respondent livedpeaceful and happy life at Dhariwal and that the marriage has beenconsummated on the first night and further that both the husband and wifehad physical relation on different occasion. Thus, it was prayed that thepetition be dismissed.

In replication, the pleas raised in petition were reiterated andthat of written statement were denied.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the respondent, after solemnisationof marriage between the parties, treated thepetitioner with cruelty. If so its effect ? OPP of marriage between the parties, treated thepetitioner with cruelty. If so its effect ? OPP

2. Whether the respondent has deserted thepetitioner since March, 1990, as alleged. If soits effect ? OPP petitioner since March, 1990, as alleged. If soits effect ? OPP

3. Whether the petitioner has no locus- standi tofile the claim-petition ? OPRfile the claim-petition ? OPR

4. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction tomaintain and try the petition ?OPR maintain and try the petition ?OPR

5. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filingthe petition by his own act and conduct ?OPRthe petition by his own act and conduct ?OPR6.Relief.”

Issues No. 1 & 2 were taken up together. In support of the pleathe appellant appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed that he wasmarried with respondent on 8.10.1989 and that after the marriage therespondent was brought at Pehowa. On the first night, the respondent toldhim that she wanted to marry some other boy of her choice but her fatherforced her to marry to him. It was asserted that the marriage was notconsummated. It was claimed that matter was told to his father 2-3 after themarriage when they went to the father of the respondent, who came toPehowa and advised the respondent to cooperate with the appellant-petitioner. However, in spite of advice of her father there was no change inher behaviour. He also stated that he went to Dhariwal, his place of posting,after 2-3 days of marriage, where he remained under tension. In the secondweek of December, 1989 father of respondent dropped her at Dhariwal andthereafter the respondent stayed for 6-7 days in a quarter of his friendsituated in the office of the Company. During her stay with him at Dhariwal,she did not attend to his friends and officers whom he invited for dinner.Similarly, she did not attend and join his other colleagues who visited thequarter. Thus, behaviour of respondent resulted in tension. The marriagewas also not consummated at Dhariwal in view of the threat of suicide. Therespondent was left at Pehowa, from where she went to her parents house atAmbala City. On 20.12.1989 he came to Pehowa on one month's leave and the respondent also came there and stayed there for three days. During thevacations of one month, respondent usually came to Pehowa and went backto Ambala. It was also stated that on the first visit to Pehowa during hisvacations, the respondent wiped out the 'Sindur' and broke bangles andthreatened to commit suicide if he touched her. Even during her stay atPehowa the marriage was not consummated. It was also stated that the wifeused to quarrel with the appellant and his family members, which resulted ingreat mental and physical torture. The other averments in petition were alsoreiterated.The appellant-petitioner further examined his father Tej Nath asPW-2, who deposed that after the celebration of the marriage between theparties, the respondent came to Pehowa and 2-3 days thereafter the appellanttold him that the respondent had told to the petitioner that the marriage ofrespondent was performed against her wishes and that the respondent hadthreatened to commit suicide if he would touch her body. He stated that hewent to father of the respondent and told about the incident on which fatherof the respondent accompanied him to Pehowa and made respondentunderstand the things. He also stated about the appellant-petitioner wentback to place of his posting after six days as he had come on leave for tendays for the performance of marriage. He also deposed with respect to theattitude of the respondent during her stay with them. He also supported theappellant that the respondent wife stayed at Dhariwal for 6-7 days but shewas brought back to Pehowa and during her stay at Dhariwal she hadrepeated the threat of suicide. The appellant went back to Dhariwal whereas

the respondent-wife left for her parental house at Ambala. He also supportedthe version of the appellant with regard to the conduct of the respondentduring one month's leave of the appellant.

PW-3 Surender Sharma, brother-in-law of the appellant,deposed that on 3[rd] March, 1990, he accompanied by his father-in-law TejNath and Pawan Kumar visited the house of respondent at Ambala anddiscussed the matter with the father of the respondent. It was afterpersuasion that she was sent to Pehowa but she stayed there for only aperiod of one week and went back to her parents house.

On the other hand, the respondent wife appeared as RW-1 anddeposed that after the marriage on 8.10.1999 she went to matrimonial homeon 9.10.1989 and thereafter she lived with the petitioner as his wife and theycohabited as husband and wife. Even on 10.10.1989 they cohabited and itwas on 11.10.1989 she along with the petitioner and two brothers-in-law ofthe appellant went to her parents house to perform Phera ceremony butreturned to Pehowa on the same day after taking meals and thereafter theycohabited as husband and wife and their relations remained cordial. Sheasserted her allegation of demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the parents of theappellant for the purpose to construct a room. It was claimed that during herstay at Pehowa the parties remained happy and her father and sister alsocame at Pehowa on festivals like Diwali and Karva-chauth etc. She claimedto have stayed at Pehowa when her husband was away to duty at Dhariwal.On 22.11.1989 the brother of the respondent came to Pehowa to take her asher sister had delivered a son and on that occasion, she was told by her mother-in-law that since there was shortage of accommodation with them,therefore, she should continue to stay at her parents house until her husbandcomes from the place of his posting. On 10.11.1987 Chander Shekhar,brother-in-law of the petitioner came to Ambala and told that she had beencalled by the petitioner at Dhariwal. On this she was first taken to Pehowaas her clothes etc. were at Pehowa and then she was taken at Dhariwal on11.11.1989. She stayed at Dhariwal for ten days where she claimed thatduring her stay they lived peacefully and happily. She claimed that theappellant came to Pehowa along with her on one month's leave and then theappellant went to Tripura on training but she remained at Pehowa uptoMarch, 1990. During her stay at Pehowa she wrote letters Ex. R-1to Ex. R-3to her parents. She further stated that on the suggestion of her father-in-lawshe wrote a letter to her parents for sending her certificates as her father-in-law had told that he would make efforts for her job. On 15.3.1990, shewrote a letter Ex. R-2 at the instance of her father-in-law and mother-in-lawas they wanted to go out of station and she was asked to go to her parentshouse with some one. Her sister came to Pehowa on 17.3.1990 and sheaccompanied her to Ambala. It was on that occasion that she was informedby her in-laws that she could be called back when her husband would cometo Pehowa. However, thereafter nobody has come to take her to matrimonialhome. It is further stated in evidence that her father-in-law had met hersister at her office at Ambala and on that occasion her sister had asked himas to when she would be taken to her matrimonial home but she wasinformed that the appellant was posted at non-family station and whenever

he would come he would take the respondent. However, nobody turned totake her nor any message was received. The respondent stated that she wasstill ready to go to the matrimonial home and live with the appellant.Sukh Versha RW-2, sister of respondent appeared in thewitness box and stated that she was posted in the office of Home Guards,Haryana. She stated that she visited Pehowa at the matrimonial home of therespondent on so many occasions and even on the occasion of Pheraceremony. The respondent told her that she was happy at the matrimonialhome and that the petitioner was also happy at that time. She only blamedabout the behaviour of the mother of the petitioner. On Karva-Chauth, themother-in-law of respondent did not come to see her. She further stated thatwhen she visited Pehowa she found appellant to be in happy mood and shewas even served tea. No complaint was made to her about the behaviour ofthe respondent. She has stated having gone to Pehowa on receipt of letterEx.R-2 to bring respondent at Ambala as the parents of the appellant were togo out of station for 3-4 days. However, thereafter nobody turned up to takeher back to the matrimonial home.

RW-3 Fakir Chand, father of the respondent, appeared in thewitness box and supported the version of the respondent on materialparticulars.RW-4 G.P.S. Grewal deposed that in the year 1991 the parentsof the parties had come together to his office at Ambala to know about theplace of posting of the appellant and also to make a request that she be takento matrimonial home. However, the father of the appellant refused to take her and even did not tell the particulars of the posting of the appellant.

RW-5 Anju Sudan, another sister of the respondent appeared inthe witness box to depose that the parties were happy in the matrimoniallife. She further claimed that the respondent had told about theconsummation of marriage. RW-6 Ramesh Kumar appeared in the witness box and deposedthat he had gone to the house of the father of the appellant at Pehowa togive message about the death of uncle of the respondent.

The learned matrimonial Court on appreciation of evidence didnot accept the version given by the appellant that the respondent has notallowed the consummation of marriage. The Court observed that in case thestand of the appellant was correct there was no occasion for the respondentto have gone to Dhariwal merely after two months of marriage. The Courtalso did not belive that though the parties stayed together in one room atChariwal, the marriage was not consummated as untoward incident may nothappen.

The learned matrimonial Court also observed that threat ofsuicide seems to be creation of appellant. The evidence, thus, was notbelieved.

The learned Court further observed that the parties lived inChobara of Vinod Kumar Gupta, friend of the appellant, which issurrounded by other houses. The Court observed that neither Vinod KumarGupta nor any other person from the locality was produced to show that therelationship between the parties at Dhariwal were cordial or strained.

The learned Matrimonial Court did not believe the allegationsthat the respondent did not attend to his friends for want of corroborationfrom any other independent evidence. The Court observed that the appellantfailed to examine any of his colleagues. The learned Court held that thematerial witnesses have been withheld by the appellant. The Court also heldthat as his statement suffered from inherent defectthe same could not bebelieved to come to a conclusion that the respondent treated her withcruelty. The other part of the story of the respondent had claimed on the firstnight that she wanted to marry to another boy, was also disbelieved. TheCourt believed the evidence led by the respondent-wife. The Court did notbelieve the version of the father of the appellant as he had denied the factumof marriage having been performed through advertisement. The Court alsoobserved that the evidence brought on record showed that the respondentand her father made efforts for rehabilitation of the parties. She was furthersaid to have given detailed version that the parties cohabited at Pehowa andthen at Dhariwal and also that they lived very happily.

The learned Court also discussed the documentary evidencebrought on record and, thus, held that the appellant has failed to prove thatrespondent had treated him with cruelty or that the appellant had desertedthe matrimonial home. The issues framed were decided against the appellantand the petition was dismissed.

Mr. Jasbir Rattan, learned counsel for the appellant referred tothe statement of PW-1 i.e. the appellant to contend that the evidence onrecord showed that the respondent had not allowed the appellant to consumate the marriage and this fact stood further proved from thestatement of PW-2, his father and, therefore, the contention of the learnedcounsel for the appellant was that this act of the respondent amounted tocruelty.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that crueltycan be both physical and mental. The learned counsel for the appellant alsoreferred to the statement of PW-2 to contend that the real dispute betweenthe parties was regarding age of Neelam which was wrongly shown less forthe matrimonial alliance though she was older than the appellant. He furtherreferred to the statement of other witnesses i.e. PW-3 and PW-4 andcontended that the allegations made in the petition stood proved and,therefore, the finding of the learned matrimonial Court deserves to be setaside. He further referred to the statement of RW-1to contend that if theevidence is read in totality it would show that the respondent was not happywith the status of the family of appellant and complained about the shortageof accommodation. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant,therefore, was that if the evidence brought on record is seen in totality itwould show that the appellant was treated with cruelty.

The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh2007(2) Civil Court cases 663 (S.C.) to contend that no uniform standardcan ever be laid down which may prove mental cruelty. It is the totality ofthe circumstances and evidence brought on record that a view can be formedwhether the person is treated with mental cruelty or not. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh (supra) hasbeen pleased to lay down as under :-

“85.No uniform standard can even be laid down forguidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate someinstances of human behaviour which may be relevant indealing with the case of 'mental cruelty'. The instancesindicated in the succeeding paragraphs are onlyillustrative and not exhaustive.

(i) On consideration of completematrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain,agony and suffering as would not make possiblefor the parties to live with each other could comewith the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of theentire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomesabundantly clear that situation is such that thewronged party cannot reasonably be asked to putup with such conduct and continue to live withother party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affectioncannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness oflanguage, petulance of matter, indifference andneglect may reach such a decree that it makes thematerial life for the other spouse absolutelyintolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. Thefeeling of deep anguish, disappointment,frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct ofother for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive andhumiliating treatment calculated to torture,discommode or render miserable life of thespouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct andbehaviour of one spouse actually affectingphysical and mental health of the other spouse.The treatment complained of and the resultantdanger or apprehension must be very grave,substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct,studied neglect, indifference or total departurefrom the normal standard of conjugal kindnesscausing injury to mental health or derivingsadistic pleasure can also amount to mentalcruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more thanjealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, whichcauses unhappiness and dissatisfaction andemotional upset may not be a ground for grant ofdivorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels,normal wear and tear of the married life whichhappens in day to day life would not be adequatefor grant of divorce on the ground of mentalcruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewedas a whole and a few isolated instances over aperiod of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthyperiod, where the relationship has deteriorated toan extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremelydifficult to live with the other party any longer,may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for anoperation of sterilization without medical reasonsand without the consent or knowledge of his wifeand similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy orabortion without medical reason or without theconsent or knowledge of her husband, such an actof the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to haveintercourse for considerable period without therebeing any physical incapacity or valid reason mayamount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husbandor wife after marriage not to have child from themarriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long periodof continuous separation, it may fairly beconcluded that the matrimonial bond is beyondrepair. The marriage becomes a fiction thoughsupported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever thattie, the law in such cases, does not serve thesanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it showsscant regard for the feelings and emotions of theparties. In such like situations, it may lead tomental cruelty.”

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant,therefore, was that admittedly there has been long period of continuousseparation and, therefore, it could be presumed that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage, therefore, is merely fiction though supportedby a legal tie and refusal to grant divorce does serve the sanctity of marriagebut on the contrary leads to mental cruelty.

The learned counsel for the appellant thereafter placed relianceon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish SitoleVs. Ganga AIR 2008 SC 3093 to contend that even if the husband has beenunable to make out a ground for divorce but the facts show that the partieshave been living separately for long period by making acrimoniousallegations against each other then continuance of such marriage woulditself amount to cruelty. In such situation the party would be entitle todivorce with adequate provision of alimony. The reliance was placed on thejudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli Vs.Neelu Kohli 2006(2) Civil Court cases 226 (S.C.) to contend thatirretrievable breakdown of marriage has been recommended to be a groundfor divorce. He also contends that it is not only the physical violence butconduct of spouse can also cause mental cruelty and torture.

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned senior counsel appearing onbehalf of the respondent supported the judgment and decree passed by thelearned matrimonial Court primarily on the ground that the appellant cannotbe allowed to take benefit of his own wrong. The contention of the learnedsenior counsel for the respondent was that the respondent has always beenwilling to accompany the appellant. He further referred to the documentaryevidence placed on record by way of letters to contend that the respondenthas been happily living in matrimonial home and it was the appellant and his family members who did not want to keep her in matrimonial home. It isthe contention that she has even not taken her dowry articles and Istri Dhan,which is still with the appellant.

The learned counsel for the respondent contended that theallegations levelled about the non-consummation of marriage are false andhave been specifically denied by the respondent and there is no reason,whatsoever, to disbelieve her statement. It is also the contention of thelearned senior counsel for the respondent that finding of fact has beenrecorded by the learned matrimonial Court on appreciation of evidence.

The learned counsel for the respondent further contended thatthe ground of act of cruelty are to be distinguished from ordinary wear andtear of family. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent isthat even if the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant believedto be true, cannot be said to be an act of cruelty. In support of his contentionreliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in thecase of Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem Chandra Pandey AIR 2002 SupremeCourt 591.

The learned senior counsel for the respondent also referred tothe judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Narinder Singh Vs.Rekha @ Pushpa 2007(5) RCR (Civil) 727 to contend that wife refusing toserve tea to friends of her husband and family members, is no ground toseek divorce on the ground of cruelty.

The learned senior counsel for the respondent finally referred tothe judgment of this Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh alias Tota Singh Vs. Jaspal Kaur 2009(1)RCR (Civil) 593 to contend that irretrievablemarriage is not a ground for grant of divorce under Section 13 of the HinduMarriage Act.

On consideration of the matter, I find no force in thecontentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Sitole Vs. Ganga (supra)is in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution of India on the facts andcircumstances of that particular case, therefore, it cannot be bindingprecedent to decide matrimonial cases. The appellant in view of the findingsrecorded by the learned matrimonial Court as also evidence brought onrecord has failed to prove cruelty or desertion. He cannot be allowed to takebenefit of his own wrong in not settling respondent in matrimonial home.To claim divorce merely on the ground that the parties have been separatelyliving for number of years cannot be a ground for divorce. The findings ofthe learned matrimonial Court do not call for any interference by this Courtin this appeal.

Dismissed with no order as to costs.

February 24, 2009 'sp'

( VINOD K. SHARMA ) JUDGE