DEEPAK NATKAR Vs. DEEPALI NATKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the 'Act') has been preferred by the husband against the refusal of grant of a decree of dissolution of marriage by divorce.

(2.) The husband/appellant/petitioner (for short, the 'petitioner') presented a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Act on 1-12-1987 in the Court of District Judge, Shajapur, averring therein that the petitioner who is employed in M.P. Electricity Board at Shajapur, was married to the respondent according to Hindu rites in the year 1980 and from the wedlock they have a daughter. Two years after the marriage, the respondent got an employment in Education Department near Ujjain and was living since then at her parents' house. Because of the employment the respondent was not discharging her duties towards petitioner, who asked her to get herself transferred to Shajapur or to relinquish the job. The petitioner complained of the respondent's cruel ill-treatment with petitioner's parents, and with him in not allowing him to cohabit with her and in mentally torturing him by not following his wishes and not living with him. At occasions the respondent quarrelled with the petitioner, levelled against him the charge of adultery and threatened to commit suicide, once the respondent mixed poisonous material with the food and gave it to the petitioner. Besides, it was alleged that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition without reasonable cause and without his consent and against his wishes. The respondent denied all the allegations and submitted that the petitioner wants to marry one Anju Gupte and, therefore, presented the petition on false and made up grounds; the respondent got the employment in Education Department at the instance and with the consent of the petitioner only as the financial condition of the family of the petitioner was not sound. As regards her posting the petitioner insisted not to get her transferred to Shajapur, as he was likely to be transferred; she used to go on holidays and Summer vacations to Shajapur to live with her husband and never refused to cohabit. During conciliation proceeding, the trial Court ordered the respondent to stay in her matrimonial home for 15 days so as to resolve the differences, if any, amicably, which the respondent complied, but the petitioner at his residence even refused to talk to her.

(3.) The trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by parties found none of the charges proved, dismissed the petition for grant of decree of divorce, which has been challenged in this appeal.