SMT. SUDHA Vs. MAHESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before me filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The allegations of the matrimonial offence of cruelty are contained in paras 4 to 9 of the petition. One of the issues framed was as to whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty as alleged. The petition was tried and dismissed upon the finding on this issue against the appellant. The learned Additional District Judge found that the allegations made in paras 4 to 8 are vague and not in conformity with Rule 7(iv) in the absence of disclosure of the date, month, time and also the place of the commission of the matrimonial offence of cruelty. The incident of cruelty as mentioned in para 9 of the petition was found as unsubstantiated. The petition was dismissed by the order dated Oct. 19, 1985. The present appeal under Sec. 28 of the Act seeks the reversal of the decree of the trial Court and for grant of the decree of dissolution of marriage.

(2.) The respondent is appearing in person and, therefore, it has taken three hearings in going through the records of the trial Court including the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties and the documents placed on the record. For the reasons given below, I find that the learned Judge has gone wrong in returning the finding on paras 4 to 8 of the petition. I am not inclined in the first appeal to go for the first time into the merits of the incidents of cruelty as alleged in paras 4 to 8 of the petition and would leave it to the trial Court for its determination.

(3.) The allegations made in paras 4 to 8 in the petition are reproduced hereunder:-