H M GOVIL Vs. SUDHA GOVIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the husband is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 22-7-1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby his petition undersection 13(i),(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was dismissed.

(2.) It is alleged in the petition that the parties were married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 22-11-72 at Delhi. The parties cohabited at Delhi and from the wedlock two female children were born, first in November, 1974 and the second in November, 1975 who are at present residing with the respondent at Ajmer. It is further alleged that the respondent was aggressive since the day of marriage and she was proud of her education. She used to pay more attention towards her parents and used to visit them frequently. Finally, on 2-10-76 she left the matrimonial ? home without any excuse or reason. She also took away with her the utensils, jewellery and other belongings. At the time of leaving the matrimonial home she told the appellant that she had decided to desert him and to deprive him of the love of his children. The appellant made several attempts to bring back the respondent but she was determined not to return to the matrimonial home.

(3.) In the month of January, 1978 the parents of the appellant went to Ajmer along with certain respectables, common friends and relatives. They went to the house of the respondent and tried to persuade her and her parents to re-establish the marital life but the respondent did not agree and was not willing to join the society of the appellant. She also misbehaved with the parents of the appellant. The desertion by the respondent has further increased the mental agony and tension of the appellant. The respondent has also threatened the appellant for further harassment. It is also stated that the respondent visited Delhi in the month of October, 1978 and stayed at her relatives house. Having come to know, the appellant went in person to the respondent and suggested the respondent to join him and re-establish the broken ties. The respondent became aggressive and infuriated and insulted the appellant by abusive language and warned. the' appellant that the respondent was determined to harss the appellant and make his life miserable.