ASHWANI KUMAR KOHLI Vs. ANITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is husband's first appeal, directed against the judgment and order, dated 15th November, 1996, rendered by Shri V.P. Gaur, Judge Family Court, Bareilly in M.M. Petition No. 358 of 1985 Ashwani Kumar Kohli v, Smt. Anita under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, dismissing his petition for divorce.

(2.) on 11th May, 1981 as per Hindu customs and rites at Bareilly. The plaintiff-appellant's grievances are that after the marriage the respondent stayed with the appellant for a very short period and continued to make regular visits to her parent's house, The respondent was carrying pregnancy with someone-else and hence in-the'first week of August, 1981 she went to the house of her parents and illegally aborted the child. This created great mental shock to the plaintiff-appellant, and is a serious act of cruelty to, the appellant. Thereafter she did not come to the appellants house and after intervention, of common relations the respondent came 'to the appellant's house. Finally, in the last week of April, 1982, the respondent along with the jewellery, clothes etc. left the house of the appellant and never returned, inspite of persistent efforts made by the appellant. The respondent had been harassing the appellant by filling false complaints against the appellant and other members of his family. By staying at her parent's house the respondent has deprived the appellant of his right have marital compay. The respondent has deserted the appellant for more 'than two years without any sufficient cause. On the allegations of her cruelty and desertion, the appellant filed the marriage petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for a. decree of divorce.

(3.) The respondent wife Smt. Anita, resisted the petition alleged that the allegations of cruelty and desertion made by the petitioner appellant are concocted and false, and also the allegation of illegal abortion made by the petitioner is also baseless and without any foundation. After the marriage she continued to stay at the house of the petitioner and discharged her marital obligations even though the petitioner and the members of his family harassed and tortured the respondent for want of dowry. She denied that she left the house of the petitioner in the month of August, 1981 and aborted at her parent's house and further finally she left the petitioner's house in the month of April, 1982. The respondent alleged that she was living with the petitioner at Pithoragarh where the petitioner is employed. As the respondent had pregnancy, it was considered appropriate by the petitioner and the members of his family that delivery of the child should take place at the house of the parents of the respondent at Bareilly, and so she came at the house of her parents where she gave birth to a male child, in Mrs. Stubb's Maternity and Child Welfare Society, Bareilly on 21st September, 1982. There was rejoining at the house of the petitioner on the birth of the son to the parties. After the birth of the child she started living with the parents of the petitioner in Bareilly. The petitioner used to visit there, and also opened a joint account in central Bank of India at Bareilly. While residing at the house of the petitioner-appellant at Bareilly she discharged her marital obligations. In the month of February, 1983 the respondent came to her parents house as her mother was ailing, and thereafter the petitioner never took the respondent to his house inspite of persistent efforts made by the respondent. The respondent is and has always been willing to live with the petitioner.