HANUMAN PRASAD RAJAK Vs. KASHIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is by the plaintiff -husband who feels aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 20.8.1990 passed by Fifth Addl. District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 23 -A/90 dismissing his application for divorce.

(2.) THE parties are legally married husband and wife and governed by the Act. They were married on 20.2.1970 and have a male child born to them. They are living separately since 4.6.1976. It may be mentioned that the appellant's elder brother Kamal Kishore was married to the elder sister of the respondent, viz. Vimlabai but the relationship between them has been brought to an end by a decree of divorce. The appellant filed an application seeking divorce Under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion. He alleged that the treatment of the respondent with him, his mother and paternal aunt was cruel and she even used to abuse and assault them. This has caused mental tension and endangered his life. It is specifically averred that on 2.6.75 the respondent assaulted appellant's mother and paternal aunt and abused them filthily. Intervention of Panchas was sought the appellant who specified the whole matter by affecting the compromise. It is further alleged that on 4.6.76 the respdt. and her elder sister Vimlabai had returned late in the night from their parents' house and were scolded for that reason. Both the sisters thereafter got angry and started abusing everyone filthily. Vimlabai poured Kerosene Oil on her body and threatened to burn herself. Respondent threatened to involve the entire family of the appellant in false criminal case for that reason. Panchas were again called for affecting compromise. As a result of their intersection, the respondent left the house saying that she has nothing to do with the appellant or his family and that they were dead for her. The respondent even did not take her infant with her because she wanted to have no connection with the appellant and the family. It is alleged that the respondent was pregnent at that time and subsequently gave birth to a female child who unfortunately died. The news of the death of the female child was not even communicated to the appellant. On these facts, it is alleged that the respondent was guilty of cruelty and had deserted her matrimonial home permanently, justifying a decree for divorce.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, held evidence does not establish that the respondent has been cruel towards the appellant or the members of his family. Learned Judge further held that the respondent has not deserted the appellant on 4.6.76 as alleged and that the respondent was willing to stay with the appellant. The learned Judge was further of the opinion that it was the appellant who has unjustifiably left the respondent and is not willing to bring her back. The Court thus found no justification for any decree of divorce. That is how the application filed by the applicant was dismissed. It is this Judgment which is impugned in the present appeal.