VEERENDRA PAMPANNA KONER Vs. GEETA VEERENDRA KOINER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the petitioner, who had filed a petition under Sec. 13(1 )(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'HM Act', for brevity) before the court below seeking a decree of divorce.

(2.) The petitioner was the husband, who had married the respondent as on 18.5.2006 as per the Hindu Customs and rituals. The petitioner was living along with his parents and elder brother and two younger brothers and even after the marriage with the respondent, he continued to reside with them. However, after some time, he had set up his own home and he and his wife started living there.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the trial court has dismissed the petition on an incorrect assumption that the petitioner was required to prove a previous history of adulterous life of the respondent with Siddu Hosmani. It is contended that it is without reference to the amendment to the relevant provision, which did not require establishment of any previous history and even a single instance of adultery was sufficient to establish a case f or divorce. This, the learned counsel would submit, is evident from Paragraphs 25 to 28 of the impugned judgment. The order completely ignores the amendment to the HM Act.