MANISHA SRIVASTAVA Vs. ROHIT SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is preferred by the appellant-wife against the judgment and order dated 30th May, 2012 and decree dated 10th July, 2012 passed by the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Marriage Petition No. 1508 of 2008 (Rohit Srivastava v. Smt. Manisha Srivastava) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the "Act").

(2.) It is necessary to set out in some detail the facts which gave rise to this appeal. The appellant was married with the respondent on 27th April, 2007 according to Hindu rites at Lucknow. After marriage, they went to Goa on a sojourn and returned from there on 08th May, 2007. On the very next day i.e. 09th May, 2007 the appellant went to her father's house at District Jalaun. The respondent-husband is a resident of district Lucknow. At that point of time, he was posted as an Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, at Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. On 25th June, 2007 the appellant-wife came back to Lucknow. It is alleged by the respondent-husband that there was change in her behaviour towards him and his aged parents and she started humiliating and insulting his family members. She also started treating the respondent-husband with cruelty. The respondent tried to change the behaviour of the appellant-wife and also tried to know the reason for the change of her behaviour. The parents of the respondent told him that in his absence the appellant used to talk over cell phone for hours together and some unknown people used to visit her. When the mother of the respondent raised objection to her behaviour, she explained that the visitors are her friends of the college days and she would not like any interference in her personal matter. The father of the appellant was also apprised of about her behavioural changes.

(3.) On 19th September, 2007 when the appellant was living with her husband at Rudrapur, her father visited there and she went back with him to Jalaun. The father of the appellant had assured the respondent that in future she would behave normally. In the meantime, the appellant conceived and after living for a short time at Lucknow, she went back to her father's house on the excuse that she has got to appear in the B.Ed. examination. Enquiry revealed that there was no such examination of the appellant. The respondent visited her father's house and the appellant came back to Lucknow but her behaviour again became aggressive at Lucknow and on several occasions she created ugly seen, which attracted the neighbours of the husband, and on several occasions in presence of the neighbours she had insulted the aged parents of the respondent-husband.