VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KIRAN BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid two appeals are being disposed off by this common order. FAM No.138 of 2012 has been preferred by the appellant -husband against respondent-wife, aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 17.9.2012 by which appellant's application for grant of decree of divorce under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty and desertion, has been dismissed.

(2.) First Appeal No.116 of 2003 is preferred by the appellant -husband against the respondent- wife aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 6.5.2003 by which the learned Court below has allowed wife's application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(3.) Appellant-husband moved an application for grant of decree of divorce against respondent-wife on the pleadings that their marriage was solemnized on 21.2.1985 and a daughter Roshni was born out of their wedlock in the month of August 1986. The appellant pleaded in his application that the respondent- wife insisted the appellant to take her along with him to Bombay where the appellant was engaged in a job, despite being informed that at Bombay, the husband was not having any independent house and sharing with others as paying guest. The respondent-wife adopted a very stubborn approach and declared that she would not reside at Raipur and started quarreling, which led to disturbance of peace in the family. Due to insistence of wife, finally, the appellant had to take his wife to Bombay in November 1985 by taking on rent, a flat. Respondent-wife is not at all compromising and she was never willing to reside with family members of the appellant. It was further pleaded that at Bombay also, respondent-wife used to lock the house and go out frequently without informing the appellant and the appellant had to face serious inconvenience when upon return to his home, he would find house locked by the wife. Respondent-wife was not living peacefully. She was habitual of moving around here and there like a vagabond, she had no affinity, she was quarrelsome and used to make the atmosphere in the house tense. Even when the appellant remained posted at Hyderabad and Pune, respondent-wife behaved unusually. Upon return, she used to straightway proceed to her parental house rather than staying in the matrimonial house. Respondent-wife used to quarrel on appellant extending financial help to his family members and also used to threaten to commit suicide. At the time of marriage of wife's sister also, there was a lot of quarrel raised by the wife. In February 1989, respondent-wife after having entered into quarrel, picked up some of her belongings and left the house of the appellant and later on, father-in-law informed that respondent-wife would not return to matrimonial house as they have broken all relations. He also asked the appellant to send all the articles, belonging to respondent, failing which, appropriate legal proceedings would be drawn. Respondent-wife used to tell the appellant that she was married against her wishes, she wants to remain active in politics and live life, free from any obligation. She used to mostly remain busy in political activities at the cost of matrimonial obligations, used to threaten to commit suicide by consuming sleeping pills. Therefore, the appellant may be granted decree of divorce both on the ground of cruelty and desertion as the parties have been living separately for 16 years. It was also pleaded that during the pendency of the case also, the appellant-husband was subjected to cruelty inasmuch as during the pendency of appeal against decree of restitution of conjugal rights, respondent-wife forcibly entered the house of the appellant where the appellant's brother was running his utensil shop and proceedings of attachment were initiated. He was apprehended by the police. Criminal proceedings were initiated so much so that he had to remain in jail. Thus, lot of cruelty was committed on the appellant.