INDER SINGH Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/husband has challenged the judgment dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, dismissing a petition filed by him for seeking divorce from the respondent/wife under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'HMA') on the ground that he has failed to prove that the respondent/wife had treated him with cruelty or that she had deserted him.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is as follows. The marriage of the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnised on 4.5.1980, as per Hindu rites and customs. Though the appellant/husband disputes their paternity, there are two children born from the marriage, a son, Parveen Kumar was born on 21.10.1983 at Pataudi, Haryana which is the parental home of the respondent/wife and a daughter, Indu Priya was born on 9.6.1985 at Nangloi, Delhi which is the matrimonial home of the respondent/wife. Both of them were residing with the respondent/wife since birth and are married. After about 35 years of their marriage, the appellant/husband filed a divorce petition on 27.2.2015.

(3.) As per the factual narration in the divorce petition, both, the appellant/husband and the respondent/wife were school teachers employed with the Government of Haryana. They were posted as teachers at different places, during the course of their service. The appellant/husband retired from service in March, 2012. It is his version that right from the date of the marriage, the respondent/wife used to taunt him claiming that the status of her family was much higher than his status; that she was in the habit of picking up quarrels with the appellant/husband and also abused him; that she never prepared food for him; that she created scenes in front of his relatives and humiliated him and his family members; that she was in the habit of staying at the matrimonial home just for a few days and thereafter she would go to her parental home and remain there for periods spanning over six months; that she was in the habit of avoiding social and family functions of the appellant/husband and lastly, that she did not permit him to establish a physical relationship with her thereby causing him mental torture.