RAJEEV JAISWAL Vs. SUMAN JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (in short the Act) against the judgment and decree, dated 30 -01 -2001, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital, in Civil Suit No. 68 of 1999, Rajeev Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Suman Jaiswal, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petition or the petitioner -appellant for divorce for want of jurisdiction.

(2.) BRIEF facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the petitioner appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce alleging therein that the petitioner and respondent are Hindu by religion and their marriage was solemnized on 15 -2 -1988 according to Hindu rites and customs; that after the marriage, the respondent -wife used to reside with the petitioner at his house. It is also alleged that the petitioner has been working in the Medical Department and is posted at Lakhimpur Kheri; that on 26 -2 -97, when the petitioner was out of station and had gone to Lucknow, the respondent -wife without any cause or consent of the petitioner left the company of the petitioner and went to the house of her brother by taking jewellery and luggage at Lucknow; that the petitioner lodged report at Police Station Lakhimpur; but the respondent -wife has not returned to the house of appellant till 26 -2 -1997 and during this interval, no cohabitation or marital relations had taken place between them. According to petitioner, the respondent has deserted the petitioner without sufficient cause for more than two years, despite all efforts made by the petitioner -appellant to reconcile the matter to restore the marital relations between the parties. It is further alleged that out of the wedlock, two children named Km. Neha aged 10 years and master Sumit aged 7 years were born and the respondent wife has kept them with her, therefore, the appellant is also deprived of the company of his own children thereby causing mental pain to him. The petitioner has also alleged cruelty on the part of the respondent wife.

(3.) IT is evident from the record that the respondent wife has moved an application before the learned lower court challenging the jurisdiction of the court, but the same was dismissed on 14 -11 -2000 by the then learned Judge for want of prosecution by her. Thereafter, the respondent has not put in appearance in the case, therefore, the case was ordered to proceed ex -parte against her.