DEEPA VERMA Vs. NEERAJ KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 against the judgment and the decree passed by the 4 th Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in H.M.A. No. 44/2009, whereby the petition for divorce preferred by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed.

(2.) Respondent/husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act pleading that appellant was married with him on 23.11.2005 according to Hindu customs and rites. Their marriage life was running smoothly at Delhi. But after 2-3 months, due to ill advise of mother appellant/wife started misbehaving with the respondent/husband and stopped doing house hold work by saying that she would not cook the food and wash the clothes. Appellant/wife expressed that she does not want to give birth to a child and want to do some job. She used filthy language and also started giving threat to commit suicide. She also started teasing the respondent in the night. Whenever the respondent tried to take sleep, she used to pinch him. She also used to keep the lights on up to late night, so that respondent could not sleep. When the behaviour of the appellant became intolerable, the respondent disclosed this to his father. The father of the respondent called him and his wife and tried to make her understand to improve her behaviour. On that day, the appellant/wife felt repentant and wrote a note that she will correct herself. It is further pleaded that appellant-wife again started pressing the respondent that he should accompany her and seek a job at Gwalior.

(3.) It is further pleaded that the appellant-wife was not ready to live in the joint family and started demanding partition from the family. Ultimately after partition, the respondent shifted to a house at Ranjeet Nagar. Appellant-wife brought all her Stridhan and the jewellery and cash received in the partition. It is further pleaded that she called his father to Delhi and thereafter handed over him all the jewellery and money which has been received in the partition in the absence of the respondent. When respondent came to know, he asked about it, then appellant stated that she is responsible for this.