LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-136

VISHAL SINGH Vs. PRIYA

Decided On June 12, 2020
VISHAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
PRIYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by Shri Vishal Singh being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 30.08.2019 of the learned Family Court, Dwarka, dismissing his petition seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent No.1, Priya alias Pihu under Section 13(1) (i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 (the 'HMA' for short).

(2.) The brief relevant facts of the case are as follows. The appellant/husband was married with the respondent No.1 on 29.11.2012 in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Though the marriage was duly consummated, no child was born to the parties. In the grounds taken for seeking dissolution of marriage, it was averred by the appellant/husband that since the beginning of the marriage, the attitude of the respondent No.1/wife was not positive as she declined to consummate the marriage or attend the marriage ceremonies till some time had passed. She also showed a disinclination to join the matrimonial home after the Phera Ceremony and declined to go for the honeymoon. On 08.01.2013, when her mother and brother had come to discuss some matters at the matrimonial home, the respondent No.1/wife allegedly abused the appellant/husband and his family members and proclaimed that she had no interest in the marriage. She further disclosed that she was having a love affair with the respondent No.2, who was the brother of her brother-in-law (jija) and whom she had desired to marry.

(3.) According to the appellant/husband, he did his very best to salvage the marriage, but failed in all his efforts. He further claimed that on 22.03.2013, on the occasion of Holi, the respondent No.1/wife left her matrimonial home with all her jewellery and valuables with her brother and brother-in-law and on 28.03.2013, asked him over the phone to read the letter she had left under the mattress which contained shocking disclosures. The respondent No.1/wife also informed him that she would not return back and preferred to live her life with the respondent No.2, as both were planning to get their marriage registered.