NISHI Vs. JAGDISH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/wife is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated February 24, 2016 whereby the divorce petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent/husband has been allowed thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties.

(2.) The social and economic status of the parties to this appeal can be inferred from their respective residential addresses. The marriage was arranged through a charitable trust of a mandir. The respondent/husband though an employee (UDC) with MCD, the appellant/wife was doing some private job earning about 6,000 - 7,000 per month and was having a mother with no source of income.

(3.) The appellant/wife entered the matrimonial home nurturing a dream to have separate home for two of them only. The respondent/husband was shouldering the family responsibilities and was not comfortable in having a separate accommodation or bear the unnecessary burden of paying the rent and running two kitchens. Since the appellant/wife was not even allowing him cohabitation for days together, may be to put a pressure on him to concede to her demand to have a separate house, mid way found by him was to make some arrangement in the same house. He along with his wife shifted to the first floor within a few months of marriage. Apparently it was a perfect solution to strike a balance between sharing family responsibilities and meeting the demand of his newly -wed wife to make her happy. Even this could not succeed as the respondent/husband has claimed that he was not allowed to sleep on the first floor by his wife leaving no option for him but to sleep at the ground floor. Birth of a son to the parties also did not bring any change in their life so far as this issue was concerned. The appellant/wife left the matrimonial home on December 08, 2007 after making various police complaints against the husband and in -laws. A small issue i.e. to have separate accommodation could not be settled by the parties even after about four years of their togetherness. At the bottom of the problem, fault appears to be with the approach of the parties to tackle the issue.