HARISH CHANDER DRALL Vs. SURESH WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant's petition HMA No. 17/2000/94 seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act') on the ground of cruelty.

(2.) THE parties were married on 3.6.1982 and a child was born on 7.10.1993 but died immediately thereafter. The appellant lays the blame for the death of the child on account of the negligence of the respondent and her parents. His case is that soon after the marriage the relationship between the respondent and the members of his family became sour. The respondent used to have fits of mental unsoundness and when the appellant and his family tried to get her medically examined she refused and also abused the family of the appellant. It is then stated that the respondent pressurised the appellant to set up a separate residence and the appellant did not agree to this. The respondent used to frequently go away to her parents house and make life difficult for the appellant.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge after examining the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant had not established the allegation that the respondent had treated him with cruelty. On the contention of the appellant that the respondent had behaved badly in the presence of neighbours, the trial Court observed that the appellant had not produced any independent evidence. Further, even the parents of the appellant were not produced as witnesses. The appellant was also not able to explain why, after the compromise was reached, he took back the respondent only after two or three months. The attempt to show that the respondent had abused him in his office also failed since the evidence in the form of PW2 Jaipal Singh was unhelpful. The said witness was not an eye -witness to the incident. Moreover, he was a cousin of the appellant. The further allegation that the respondent had refused to cohabit with the appellant also was disbelieved by the trial Court since admittedly the respondent delivered a child in October 1993. On all these grounds the trial Court dismissed the petition.