SNEH LATA Vs. ASHOK KUMAR DHULL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the wife, who assails impugned judgment of 7th September, 2007 vide which respondent -husband has been granted divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(2.) THE factual matrix of this case has already been spelt out in the opening paragraph of the impugned judgment and needs no reiteration. Suffice it would be to note that parties were married on 8th June, 1980 in Delhi and of the three children born out of this wedlock, unfortunately one son expired on 4th June, 2000, thus, the parties presently have one living daughter and one son. Appellant is a primary teacher in MCD and respondent is also a teacher. According to respondent, the appellant used to leave the matrimonial house to an undisclosed destination and return after 10 -15 days. The secret visits were virtually quarterly and there used to be frequent quarrels between the parties. At trial, respondent had deposed as PW -1 and his mother -Mahima Devi deposed as PW -2 to substantiate the allegations of cruelty meted out by appellant to respondent. To corroborate his version, respondent had got examined a mason -Vijay Kumar (PW -5) and two police officials (PW -3 & PW -4) to prove that respondent had made a criminal complaint but it was registered as a kalandara under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. which was ultimately compromised. According to respondent, he has been forced to live away from appellant in a room on the first floor whereas the rest of the family lived on the ground floor and appellant had refused to cook meals for respondent and for two years prior to filing of the divorce respondent had been taking his meals from one Janak Dhaba. It is also the case of the respondent that he was assaulted by appellant and children on 3rd July, 2003 and since July, 2001 appellant has refused to cohabit with the respondent. On the contrary, stand of appellant herein before the trial court was of denial and it was asserted by appellant that she had given Rs. 20,000/ - on 19th September, 2003 and she was living with respondent like a good wife and sought dismissal of the petition for divorce. Divorce proceedings concluded with the passing of the impugned judgment. The findings returned in the impugned judgment are as under: -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent submits that there is nothing to show that evidence led by respondent is beyond the pleadings and there is no effective cross examination of respondent. Respondent's counsel points out that the averments regarding the visit of both the sides to Trade Fair and their attending marriage parties of relatives is not pleaded in the written statement by the appellant. Lastly, it is submitted that decisions relied upon by appellant are distinguishable on facts and there is no merit in this appeal.