D N SHARMA Vs. USHA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Matrimonial Court whereby the petition filed by the appellant/ husband under Section 13 (1) (i a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short referred to as `the Act') for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was dismissed. A few facts relevant for deciding this appeal are:-

(2.) The parties were married according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies on 9.5.1959. Two daughters were born from the wedlock of the parties. The parties are living separately since 8.1.1990. Alleging that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty, the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short referred to as `the Act') for dissolution of their marriage. It was alleged in the petition that the appellant was living with his father and brother in a Government quarter but immediately after the marriage respondent insisted upon separating from the joint family and was set to break the joint family of the appellant. It is alleged that as a result of rude behaviour of the respondent, the father of the appellant received such a shock that he passed away on 6.12.1959. The brother of the appellant also separated in or about 1964. It was alleged that the respondent used to neglect the petitioner and her brothers used to instigate her and it is alleged that the brother of the respondent used to stay with the parties for days together which used to create tension in the family; that the appellant had objection particularly to the respondent's brother Prem Nath Harsh living with them as his wife had died by burns under mysterious circumstances and he had married the real sister of his deceased wife; that another brother of the respondent, namely, Kulbushan was a sub-Inspector in U.P. Police and he had been on occasions charge-sheeted by the Department and the respondent with his brother used to cause mental and emotional turmoil even on small matters shattering the peace of the house. It was also alleged that the respondent and her brother were brain washing the daughter of the parties to get her married in a rich family and when the appellant objected to the same, an argument took place on the evening of 6th/7th January, 1990 and Prem Nath brother of the respondent in league with the respondent assaulted the appellant with a fist blow as a result of which appellant's two teeth were broken and he started bleeding profusely. It is submitted that instead of looking after the appellant the respondent asked her brother to flee away from the spot as a result of which the appellant was forced to ring up the Police Control Room and he was taken to the hospital and brother of the respondent was arrested. By the time the appellant returned from the hospital after getting treatment and stitches, the respondent had called her other brother and threats were meted out to the appellant by the brother of the respondent. It was alleged that the petitioner could take no more insult and he told the brother of the respondent to leave his residence immediately at which the respondent packed her items in a huge iron trunk and leather suitcases and on 8.1.1990, at about 3-4PM the respondent alongwith her brothers and daughter Manisha left the matrimonial home. The respondent is also alleged to have lodged a complaint against the appellant with the Crime against Women Cell making false allegations against the appellant that he wanted to marry another lady named Sushila Bist whom the appellant knew from the time he was studying in LLB. It was alleged that by making such allegations, the respondent had crossed all limits of decency. It was alleged that all the above acts of the respondent clearly amount to physical and mental cruelty inflicted upon the appellant by the respondent and he was thus entitled to a decree of divorce.

(3.) In the written statement, the respondent besides denying the allegations of assault etc. upon the appellant also stated that the appellant wanted to get rid of the respondent in order to marry another lady Sushila Bist with whom the appellant was having affair for the last almost 20 years and for whom the appellant not only used to misbehave with the respondent but also forced her to leave the matrimonial home alongwith the daughter. It was also alleged that the report lodged by the respondent with the Crime Against Women Cell was true and she had rightly made allegations against the respondent about her having an affair with another lady, namely, Sushila Bist. It was also stated that the appellant was having an affair with Sushila Bist with whom he had even been going to hill stations secretly and was roaming with her openly. It was alleged that the appellant had even displayed his photographs with Sushila Bist in the drawing room and he had thrown to wind all norms of decency as he openly moved around and even used to bring her home in later years in the presence of grown up daughters. It was alleged that the appellant was so engrossed with Sushila Bist that he totally neglected his family and started harassing them. It was also alleged that the appellant wanted to live with his mistress Sushila Bist after obtaining divorce and wanted to legalise her illegal deeds of secret marriage with the said lady.