ATAM PARKASH Vs. ARORA NEELAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and decree, dated July 19, 1980, made by Miss Usha Mehra, Additional District Judge, Delhi.

(2.) The appellant, Atam Parkash Arora, was employed as a technician in Delhi Telephones. He had been deputed for training at Telecom Training Centre, Jabbalpur for the period April 14, 1975 to June 1976. During this period of training he obtained leave from April 12, 1976 to April 21, 1976, came to Delhi and married the respondent, Mrs. Neelam, on April 12, 1976 according to Hindu rites. Mrs. Neelam, it may be mentioned, was appellant's mother's sister's daughter.

(3.) On Aug. 30, 1978 the appellant filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce on the grounds contained in subclauses (ia) and (ib) of clause (1) of section 13 of the Act. This relief was claimed on the allegations that on the first night, after the marriage, the respondent did not permit cohabitation on the plea that she was under menstruation. The respondent was quarrelsome in nature and there was regular growth of beard on her face. On that account there was a murmur in the appellant's family that the consent for the marriage had been obtained by concealing the fact that the respondent had a regular growth of hair on her face. On account of this murmur the respondent got enraged and abused the appellant and his family members saying that she was not respected properly. She suffered inferiority complex to such an extent that she did not permit the appellant to cohabit with her. Appellant left for Jabbulpur to resume his training on April 20, 1976 and came back on June 12, 1970. On his return the respondent complained to the appellant that she was not properly respected by the appellant's family members. The appellant asked her to adjust herself and that she should not have any inferiority complex but on June 13, 1976 in a fit of despair she started shouting that she would go back to her parents' house. She was asked not to lose temper but she got flared up and started throwing utensils at the appellant and his family members and left the marital home in the evening of June 13, 1976 and never returned thereafter in spite of efforts. The respondent thus had treated the appellant with cruelty and had deserted the appellant for a contiguous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.