PARSHOTAM KRISHAN Vs. PREM LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the husband from an order of the learned Addl. District Judge dismissing his petition for divorce filed under Section 10,12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage.

(2.) Parshotam Krishan the appellant and Prem Lata the wife were married at Gurgaon on 17th May, 1969 in accordance with Hindu rites. The petitioner is a technician in the Civil Aviation Department of the Government of India. The petitioner's father and mother reside at Karnal and the petitioner is their only son. The respondent lived with her mother and brother (her father was no more) at Gurgoan.

(3.) The petition was filed on the 30th September, 1972. According to the petitioner the respondent had been hostile to him from the very beginning. His allegation is that the respondent felt that she belonged to a rich family and that she could not live with the petitioner whose resources were not substan tial. She is alleged to have repeatedly complained that the petitioner was a man of poor means and could not afford a car or a bungalow. She is stated to have called him and the members of his family all sorts of names. It was alleged that within few days of the marriage she took away all the articles which had been brought in dowry, that on 12th August, 1969 she joined the Oriental Training classes at Rohtak without the petitioner's consent in order to be able to have independent income, and that on 11th November, 1969 she again took away all ornaments, jewellery and valuable clothes. The petitioner had been initially posted at Calcutta at the time of the marriage but subsequently he was transferred to Delhi and lived first at Lodhi Colony and then at Sarojini Nagar. It was alleged that when the parties were at Delhi the respondent used to take bath in the balcony and not in the bath-room in order to condemn the petitioner in the eyes of his neighbours. Again in November, 1969, she was stated to have made a demand of a sum of Rs. 10000.00 from the petitioner without specifying any purpose therefor, and when the petitioner was unable to pay that amount the respondent abused him. On 12 th March, 1970 according to the petitioner the respondent left the house in which they were living when the petitioner was not there and went away to Gurgaon. When the petitioner came back home he made enquiries and came to know that the respondent had left with her brother. On the following day the petitioner is stated to have gone to Gurgaon to ask the respondent to come back with him but it is stated that the respondent refused to do so saying that she did not marry him to put up with him but only to show to the public that she is married and that if the petitioner needed the respondent then he should stay with her at Gurgaon and sever all connections with his parents. It was also alleged that the respondent stated that she is from a family of lawyers and had fully studied the Hindu Marriage Act and it is alleged that she wanted the petitioner to sign a 'Talaknama' which the petitioner refused. The petitioner therefore stated that the respondent had deserted the company of the petitioner without any cause from 12-3-1970. ltwas thus.on the grounds of cruelty and desertion that a decree for divorce was asked for. The petitioner also made a reference in his amended petition to Section 13(ii') (b) inserted by the Marriage Laws (Amendment Act of 1976) but no facts were pleaded in support of this ground and this ground was also not used either in the lower court or before me.