BEENA Vs. GURESHVIR TOMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. C. Mohapatra, J. Wife is appellant in this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act against the order of the Family Court decreeing the suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) PARTIES who are Hindus were married on 9-2-1985. Husband is an employee stationed at Moradabad in a touring job. After residing in the matrimonial home for some time, wife went back to her parental home as per custom and came back to her matrimonial home in April, 1985 to reside in the joint family of her husband as husband could not find a place to stay with his wife at Moradabad. Case of husband is that while wife was in the joint family of husband consisting of his parents, sisters, brother and his wife, she was misbehaving with them. Many times she was not taking food for which unhappy atmosphere was created in the family. She also stayed for sometime with brother of his father. There also she behaved in the same manner. When husband requested her to remain peacefully with the joint family, she threatened to commit suicide in case she is compelled to stay with members of joint family of husband. While so continuing, she left the matri monial home towards September, 1985 with all her belonging to her parental home with her brother. Sometimes after she regretted for her conduct and addressed a letter to her husband's father on 24-9-1984 and again on 20-1-1986. When wife was staying with her parents, there was conciliation and husband went and brought back his wife on 12-5-1987. After some lime, wife again started to misbehare as earlier and threatened to commit suicide. Lastly, she left her matrimonial home of her own on 16-8-1988. Further case of husband is that he had no sexual relationship with his wife as she was always avoiding the same on ground of her illness. On consultation with medical expert, he got the opinion that his wife has no child bearing capacity, On these allegation application was filed for declaring the marriage void on ground of impotency and for divorce on ground of cruelty by wife.

(3.) SRI V. K. Goel, learned counsel for the appellant contended that finding of cruelty by the learned Family Judge is not sustainable either on acts or under law. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that taking into the consideration facts and circum stances as proved, irresistable conclusion would be that wife was cruel to the husband. To appreciate the contentions of both the parties, it is necessary to chronologically narrate the facts in the present case.