SURAM PAL SINGH Vs. SAVITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.5.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the HMA No 447 of 2000 filed by the appellant herein seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Background facts:

(2.) THE appellant and the respondent were married in Delhi on 26.2.1984. A female child was born to them on 14.11.1985. The case of the appellant is that right from the beginning, the respondent showed no interest in doing the household work; was not interested to live in the village where matrimonial home was located and started showing disrespect to him in the presence of his relatives. She had insisted for the delivery of the first child in Delhi to which the petitioner reluctantly agreed just to please the respondent. Even after return to the matrimonial home, the behavior of the respondent did not been change and she insisted on their returning to Delhi. It is stated that on 25.4.1984 when some relatives of the appellant visited their matrimonial home, she started insulting the appellant; made wild accusations against him and lowered his position in the eyes of his relatives. Again on 28.8.1984 she abused and shouted at the appellant, created a scene in the presence of the neighbours. On 11.9.1984 the respondent threatened to set herself on fire by pouring kerosene oil and implicate the appellant and his family members if he forced her to do any work in the matrimonial home.

(3.) THE appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act') in the Civil Court at Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh for restitution of conjugal rights. Meanwhile, during the pendency of this petition, on 6.2.1990 the appellant filed a petition being HMA No 477 of 2000 (Old No. 103/1990) against the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Act. When the appellant originally filed the matrimonial petition, he made a number of allegations about his having come to know of the illicit relationships of the respondent with some other persons. He named those persons, gave a lengthy narration of the respondent's illicit relationship with them and even alleged to have found them in a compromising position. However, in a subsequent amended application, he appears to have dropped all these allegations. It was this that had prompted the respondent to file an application under Order 6 Rule 16, CPC pointing out that reference to the alleged adulterous associations of the respondent are not only false and incorrect, they are also scandalous, defamatory and vexatious to a fair trial.