HEM RAJ BREJA Vs. RADHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16-4-1981 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi whereby the petition of the husband under Sec. 13(1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion by the wife was dismissed. It was alleged in the petition that the parties were married on 6-6-1963 at New Delhi and the marriage was performed as per the customs and usage of Hindu rites. According to the appellant immediately after the solemnisation of the marriage the parties stayed at Murad Nagar and cohabited there. On the very next day of the marriage the appellant took the respondent to her parents' house in accordance with the custom prevailing in the family. The appellant and the respondent were to come back to their marital home but the respondent insisted on saying back and not to accompany the appellant and said that she would like to stay with her parents for some more time. The respondent's parents also showed their willingness to keep the respondent with them for a few days. Though the appellant was shocked but he had no alternative and he left the respondent at Ahmedabad with her parents. After about 15 days, the appellant again went to Ahmedabad and brought her back. On her return the appellant noticed that the respondent was not taking much interest either in the appellant or in the house-hold affairs and she had always her mind and attention set towards her parents. Every now and then she would talk of her parents and expressed her desire to see them after every alternate day. The appellant requested her that she was to establish the appellant's house and it was in their interest that she should forget about her parents and show her love and affection for the appellant and his family. In spite of this there was no effect on the respondent and she continued with the same behaviour with the result that the homely life of the appellant came to a standstill. It is further alleged that on 11-6-1964 a female child was born to the respondent at Murad Nagar. The appellant was of the opinion that after the birth of the child the respondent would change her attitude but this had never happened. The respondent continued to leave the matrimonial home on one pretext or the other and had gone to Ahmedabad for at least 100 times during the period from 1964 to 1970. The appellant had to go every time to bring her back after persuation. The respondent finally abandoned the appellant in the year 1971 with the intention of permanently for saking without the consent of the appellant and has totally repudiated the obligations of the marriage The respondent has no intention to come back to the matrimonial home and is living away from the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and without the consent of the appellant.

(2.) The petition was contested by the respondent-wife. In the written statement the fact of the marriage and the birth of the female child were admitted. The rest of the allegations of the appellant were denied. It was pleaded that after the Marriage ceremony the appellant and the respondent alongwith other members left for Murad Nagar in the hours on 7-6-1973. The appellant and the respondent thereafter stayed together as husband and wife at Murad Nagar. The allegation of the appellant that the parties went to Ahmedabad and the respondent did not come back has specifically been denied. It is further pleaded that the respondent as dutiful wife obeyed the instructions of the appellant and showed all love, affection and devotion for him. The respondent was also highly respectful towards the parents of the appellant. The allegation in the petition that the respondent visited her parents house at Ahmedabad for over 100 times during 1964 to 1970 have been denied and it is stated that the respondent went to Ahmedabad about 5-6- times during this period.

(3.) It is further alleged in the written statement that it is always the respondent who has been trying her level best to keep the appellant happy and has always been ready and willing to discharge her marital obligations towards the appellant. There is no question of the respondent being indifferent towards the appellant. The relations between the appellant and the respondent were initially very cordial and they were living together at Murad Nagar. However, the appellant stated some new business at Delhi around the year 1967 and pressurised the respondent to force her parents to give a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 to 25,000.00 in order to facilitate the business of the appellant at Delhi. The respondent conveyed this demand of the appellant to her parents. The parents of the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 in two instalments, one of Rs. 2,000 and another of Rs 3,000.00 in response to the demand of the appellant. However, this amount did not satisfy the appellant and his attitude towards the respondent and her parents reflected his resentment. The respondent and her parents were helpless as they had no means to arrange the funds asked for. The respondent continued to stay at Murad Nagar upto the end of May, 1973 and she had to leave Murad Nagar in May 1973 because her mother-in-law had died on 4-3-1973. After the death of her mother-in-law, she stayed at Murad Nagar for about two months and then left for Ahmedabad along with her daughter as the appellant was not agreeable to keep the respondent in his house at Delhi. After the appellant shifted to Delhi in 1967, initially he used to visit Murad Nagar once a week, then once in a fortnight, then once in a month and then stopped visiting altogether. In 1969 the father of the appellant took the respondent with him from Murad Nagar to Delhi and went to the house of the appellant. When the appellant came back to his house, he dragged the respondent out of the house and gave a beating to her. The respondent had no option but to return back to Murad Nagar along with her child and father-in-law. It is further stated in the written statement that she was always ready and willing to live with the appellant and she is still ready and willing to live with him and discharge her marital obligations towards the appellant. It is the appellant who is intentionally and deliberately keeping away from the respondent on one pretext or the other. It is further stated that her relations with her in-laws were very cordial and in fact her father-in-law and mother-in-law treated her like a daughter, but it was the appellant who was not prepared to keep her. All efforts of reconciliation made by her, her parents and parents of the appellant have failed and the appellant has been evading the same on one pretext or the other. 3-A. In the additional pleas, it has also been pleaded that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate or undue helay in filing the petition.