NITIN VIJ Vs. POOJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-husband under Sec. 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 read with Sec. 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the judgment dtd. 30/9/2020 passed by learned Family Court, Delhi in HMA No.374/2018 whereby appellant's petition under Sec. 13 (1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed. Also, the appellant has been directed to pay pendent lite maintenance @ Rs.15,000.00 per month from the date of application under Sec. 24 read with Sec. 26 of the Act and in addition to pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000.00.

(2.) The facts of the present case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 18/9/2010. Out of the said wedlock, a child was born on 24/8/2011. The appellant claiming irreconcilable matrimonial disputes with respondent, preferred a petition seeking divorce before the learned Family Court in July, 2015 on the ground that:-

(3.) In her written statement filed before the learned Family Court, the respondent averred that the appellant had ruined her life while she was living her life as per her choice. She pleaded that appellant is a man of arrogant behaviour and had no respect for respondent or her family members. She pleaded that after birth of the handicap child, the appellant avoided taking care of her as well as of the special child. The respondent further pleaded that at the time of the marriage between the parties, the appellant had proclaimed of earning of Rs.2.00 lakhs per month and he and his family wanted to solemnise the marriage in a Five Star Hotel which was beyond the capacity of respondent's parents. Moreover, cash of Rs.20.00 lakhs was demanded by the appellant to meet the marriage expenses besides his family also demanded milni of 21 people with shagun of Rs.500.00 each and also 21 boxes of sweets, which were beyond the capacity of her parents. Respondent also pleaded that on the night of the marriage, she was shocked to know that the appellant used to heavily drink and he had a problem in his arm due to some accident and he could not do much work from his hand, which fact was never disclosed at the time of marriage.