SOURAM BAI Vs. BABU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27/06/1998 passed by First Additional District Judge Sehore in Hindu Marriage Case No.29-A/1996, filed First Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Brief facts of the appeal are that the marriage of appellant-wife was solemnized with the respondent-husband in the year 1966 at Village Lasoodiya Sookha and out of their wedlock, two children were born one is son and other is daughter. The respondent/husband alleged that the appellant/wife misbehaved with his parents and repeatedly left his home without information. He also alleged that she used to quarrel and insult him on false grounds. He further alleged that she had deserted him for one and half years with her both the children. Then he had filed a petition of divorce on 31/03/1985, but the same was dismissed on the assurance of good and responsible behaviour by the appellant/wife on 07/09/1990. They started to live together, but appellant/wife did not change her behaviour and started to quarrel and misbehave again. She made allegation that he had illicit relations with the wife of his younger brother and due to this reason his younger brother started to live separately. He also alleged that in the year 1990 itself, she again left him and since then deprived him of her conjugal company. Being dissatisfied with her, he filed a suit under Section 13 of the Act for seeking divorce or in the alternative judicial separation against the respondent on the ground that both of them are living separately and there is no possibility of amicable settlement between them in future.

(3.) The appellant/wife accepted the birth of son and daughter out of their wedlock but denied all other allegations and claimed that she never treated the respondent/husband and his parents with cruelty. She mentioned that she saw him in an objectionable position with his brother's wife. She stated that she was willing to live with him and perform her conjugal duty. She contended that she was not living separately on her own accord but infact, she was forced to live separately because the appellant/husband was not ready and willing to live with her because she is illiterate and not good looking.