LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-256

ANIL SINGH Vs. NARENDER SINGH

Decided On August 21, 2014
ANIL SINGH Appellant
V/S
NARENDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 7.2.2000 of the Additional District Judge ("Trial Court") whereby the respondent's ( "husband") petition for dissolution of marriage against the appellant ("wife") under sections 13(1)(i -a) and 13(1)(i -b) of the Hindu Marriage Act (the "Act") was allowed and the marriage was accordingly dissolved.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present appeal are that the parties got married on 16.10.1988, a son viz. Master Amit was born to them in 1991. They lived in their matrimonial house, which was allotted to the husband by virtue of his being the Chief Medical Officer, CGHS, Delhi. The wife is employed with the National Airport Authority. Presently only the wife and their son live in the matrimonial house. It is stated that the parties could not live together after 5.5.1992. These facts remain uncontroverted.

(3.) THE Trial Court recorded in detail the various acts and instances of cruelty committed by the wife against the husband and his family; of the several attempts at reconciliation which failed and that the wife withdrew herself from the company of her husband and his family. It was also noted that the wife had filed a criminal complaint with the CAW Cell, which according to the husband, was only to harass him and his family. In her Written Statement (WS), the wife, while denying the allegations of desertion and cruelty, submitted that it was in fact the husband who had abandoned her and their minor son without any reason nor had he returned to the matrimonial house ever since; that the husband was committing adultery with his colleague at work, thereby subjecting the wife to unimaginable mental cruelty and furthermore, that the wife was threatened from disclosing this to any member of their family. The Written Statement however, denied all efforts as claimed to have been made by the husband towards reconciliation. Based on the submissions above mentioned, the Trial Court framed two issues being;