UMESH KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. SHASHI KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appeal under S. 28, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directed against the judgment and decree dated April 2, 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dismissing husband's petition under S. l3(l)(ia) & (ib) of the said Act.

(2.) The parties were married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on January 31, 1977 at Dehradun. After solemnization of the marriage, the parties resided at D 16/409, Lodhi Road, New Delhi and cohabited as husband and wife. No child was born from this lawful wedlock. The appellant had earlier filed a petition on September 6, 1980 under S. 13(ia) & (ib), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short called 'the Act') on the allegations that the respondent left the matrimonial home on or about September 1, 1977 and did not join the appellant thus deserting him without reasonable cause and that the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty. That petition was contested by the respondent. It was dismissed on both grounds by Shri K. S. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi vide judgment and decree dated May 6, 1981. A second petition under S. 13(ia) & (ib) of the Act, out of which the present appeal has arisen, was filed on March 22, 1983. The ground of desertion which is only pressed in this appeal has been set out in the petition in these words, "(a) The respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of 5 years and 6 months as she left the house of the petitioner on or about 1st September, 1977 without any reasonable cause. The parties have been living separately for the last 5 years and 6 months. The respondent is guilty of bringing cohabitation permanently to an end. In spite of the best efforts of the petitioners the respondent has never returned to live with the petitioner as his wife. (b) The respondent treated the petitioner with utmost cruelty as the petitioner felt mentally upset due to desertion and cruel behaviour of the respondent as she refused to adjust and live with the petitioner and his family. The respondent as a matter of fact wanted to support her mother at the cost of the petitioners as the mother has no son to support her. The respondent and her family members knew about the income, status and family background of the petitioner and in spite of that she refused to adjust with the petitioner".

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge appraised the evidence of the parties and expressed that the following facts emerge :