LT. CDR. NARENDER Vs. MS. SMITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present appeal the Appellant seeks directions for setting aside the judgment and decree dated FAO No. 346/2008 Page 1 of 10 13.12.2007 passed by the court of the learned ADJ dismissing the petition for divorce filed by the Appellant.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the Appellant and the Respondent got married on 19.9.2002 at Arya Samaj Mandal, Vivek Vihar, Delhi as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was duly consummated but no issue was born out of the said wedlock. The Respondent was a widow and hence it was difficult for her to adjust to the new marriage. It has been alleged by the Appellant that the Respondent was not cooperative and did not fulfill her marital obligations. Consequently the Appellant filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act which vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007 was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved with the same the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) COUNSEL further states that the single act of cruelty which was proved on record by the Appellant was that the Appellant was humiliated in the presence of his colleagues when he along with his wife was invited for dinner at the mess in the evening on 23.9.2002. Counsel further states that after the dinner the Respondent wife complained about one officer colleague of the Appellant asking about her personal sexual life and she also accused the Appellant of treating her as a prostitute. Counsel thus states that this revelation from the side of the Respondent caused great mental shock and the Appellant felt embarrassed to hear the said narration from the Respondent while in fact the Appellant kept sitting next to the Respondent throughout the dinner and no such talks could be held during the dinner with any of the officer colleague of the Appellant. The contention of the counsel for the Appellant is that this act alone by itself was enough to prove the cruelty as required under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of divorce. Counsel also states that the Appellant was not given any opportunity to file replication to rebut the allegations made by the Respondent in her written statement. Counsel also submits that the learned trial court did not frame the issues out of the pleadings and therefore grave illegality has been committed by the trial court in deciding the controversy without framing any specific issues.