RAMESH CHAND Vs. SUSHILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the husband is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14th Sept. 1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby his petition under Section 13 (1) (la) (lb) of the Hindu Marriage Act, was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. As far as the ground of desertion is concerned the same was found to be against the appellant on the short ground that admittedly the parties had lived together till 13th December 1981 and the petition having been filed on 13th September, 1982 the period of two years had not elapsed and as such this ground was not available to the husband. The learned counsel for the appellant rightly did not challenge the findings as far as the ground of desertion is concerned.

(3.) The only remaining ground is that of cruelty. It was alleged in the petition that right from the inception of the marriage the respondent was forcing the appellant to have a separate independent accommodation to live. The second ground of cruelty as alleged was that the respondent used to leave the matrimonial home and go to her parents' house without the express permission of the appellant. The third act of cruelty as alleged was that a child was born to the respondent on 19th Nov, 1979 at her parents' house and the appellant was not informed of the same. The fourth ground is that on 15th August 1981 the respondents wrote a letter to her uncle stating therein that she was treating the appellant as her brother and she was not ready to obey the appellant. The learned trial Judge on perusal of the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that mere asking the spouse to take an independent house was not cruelty, there was nothing to show that the respondent was going to her parents' house without the consent of the appellant, as regards the birth of the child the appellant should have known when the child was due to be delivered. The respondent had stated that he was informed by her brother. Regarding the letter dated 15th Aug. 1981 the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the story put up by the appellant could not be believed and the alleged letter was taken under coercion and threat. Consequently the petition was dismissed.