OM PRAKASH Vs. RAJNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is directed against the judgment and decree dt. Mar., 12, 1984 of the Court of Shri M. A. Khan, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the petition of the appellant for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under S. 13(1)(ia) of the said Act.

(2.) The factual background is this. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on Jan. 22, 1980 at New Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Both the parties cohabited at New Delhi and out of this wedlock, one male child named Kapil was born on Dec. 23, 1980 who is still alive and is living with the respondent. According to the appellant, the differences arose between the parties in the month of Jan., 1981 and the respondent had left the house of the appellant on Feb. 15, 1981 with her son and went to her parents' house with all her belongings like gold ornaments, clothes etc. Allegations of cruelty are made in paras 5, 6 and 7 of the petition in these words :

(3.) The respondent denied the allegations of cruelty in the corresponding paragraphs of the written statement. It is denied that the respondent created or caused to be created such conditions which became intolerable or it was impossible for the appellant to continue to live with the respondent. It was also denied that there was any cruel treatment or misbehaviour by the respondent towards the appellant or it caused any physical or mental injury to the appellant. It is pleaded that with the permission of the appellant and his mother, the respondent's mother brought the respondent to her house on Feb. 15,1981 as it is customary, that the appellant allowed the respondent to live at least for about a month and agreed to bring her back to his house, that the appellant told the respondent that he needed Rs. 25,000.00 for his business as already asked for and if she wanted to live with him at his house she should bring Rs. 25,000.00, that the respondent's parents were unable to provide this amount and that the appellant refused to bring her back to his house. She expressed her readiness and willingness to go and live with the appellant at his house along with her child even in the written statement. Averments have been made in the written statements of several incidents but is is unnecessary to make a reference of them.