REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PRAVIN KUMARI JAITLY Appellant

V/S

SURINDER KUMAR JAITLY Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ASHWANI KUMAR SEHGAL V. SMT. SWANTAR SEHGAL [REFERRED]
SMT. SUDESH VERMA V. ACHHAR KUMAR VERMA [REFERRED]
KRISHNA SARBADHIKARY V. ALOK RANJAN [REFERRED]
SURESH KUMAR CHAWLA V. SUBHASH CHANDER CHAWLA [REFERRED]
DR. N.G. DASTANE V. MRS. S. DASTANE [REFERRED]
CHANDERKALA TRIVEDI V. DR. S.P. TRIVEDI [REFERRED]
V. BHAGAT V. MRS. D. BHAGAT [REFERRED]
PARIMI MEHAR SESHU V. PARIMI NAGESWARA SASTRY [REFERRED]
RAMESH CHANDER V. SMT. SAVITRI [REFERRED]
SWARAN LATA GHOSH VS. H K BANERJEE [REFERRED]
V BHAGAT VS. D BHAGAT MRS [REFERRED]
RAJINDER SINGH JOON VS. TARA WANTI [REFERRED]
KAMINI GUPTA VS. MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA [REFERRED]
ASHOK KUMAR BHATNAGAR VS. SHABNAM BHATNAGAR [REFERRED]
RAJINDER BHARDWAJ VS. ANITA SHARMA [REFERRED]
ALKA VS. R K GAUTAM [REFERRED]
CHANDAN AGARWAL VS. MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL [REFERRED]
RAJAN VASANT REVANKAR VS. SHOBHA RAJAN REVANKAR [REFERRED]
NATHU LAL VS. NATHI BAI [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife in a matrimonial action for divorce is the appellant in the appeal challenging the decree for divorce passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 17.11.1995.

(2.) The husband-respondent filed the application for divorce on the ground that the appellant had been cruel to the respondent and the members of his family and therefore, he was entitled to decree for divorce. But appellant-wife resisted the petition on diverse grounds. The respondent examined himself as Public Witness 1 and examined Joginder Singh as Public Witness 2 and Smt. Santosh Chopra as Public Witness 3, who were the neighbours. Besides this, the respondent examined this father Jagdish Lal as Public Witness 4.

(3.) The appellant-wife examined herself as RW 1. 4.The main case of the respondent-wife was that the appellant had complained against the respondent and members of his family to the police and she was treating than in a manner unbecoming of wife of the respondent. The act of the appellant in going to the police and treating them in a manner not at all consistent with the department of a daughter-in-law of the house would amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. There are certain other allegations by the husband against the appellant and the appellant-wife also had levelled certain allegations against the husband.

Click here to view full judgment.

PRAVEEN KUMARI JAITLY Vs. SURINDER KUMAR JAITLY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address