LAWS(DLH)-2010-11-238

AJAY KUMAR GAUR Vs. MONIKA SHARMA

Decided On November 12, 2010
Ajay Kumar Gaur Appellant
V/S
MONIKA SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 27.11.2008 passed by the Court of the learned ADJ, Delhi, whereby the divorce petition filed by the Appellant under Section 13(1) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the Appellant and Respondent got married on 23.1.2003 in Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and a female child was born out of the said wedlock on 17.5.2004. it is the case of the Appellant that the Respondent was suspicious about him having extra marital relations and that caused cruelty to him. He filed for divorce under Section 13(1) (ia) & (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 19555 which vide judgment dated 27.11.2008 was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved with the same the Appellant has filed the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, counsel for the Petitioner states that the Appellant has successfully proved the cruel behaviour of the Respondent but still the learned trial court, ignoring the facts on record, dismissed the divorce petition. Counsel further submits that the Respondent, however, in her written statement has admitted the fact that she had developed an impression of extra marital affair of the Appellant with one Ms. Indu Kakkar and with the said admission on the part of the Respondent, the learned trial court ought to have accepted the version of the Appellant. Counsel further submitted that the Appellant was terminated from his service due to the said allegation of extra marital relationship which caused serious and indelible mental agony to the Appellant due to which he could not devote time to his office work which ultimately led to his termination from the service. Counsel further submits that the Respondent used abusive language besides not taking any interest in household work and on many occasions she misbehaved and insulted the Appellant even in the presence of his friends. Counsel further submits that the Respondent deserted the Appellant in the first week of August 2004 without any lawful reason and the Respondent did not return to the matrimonial home thereafter, and therefore the Respondent by her refusal to join back the company of the Appellant brought the cohabitation permanently to an end.