DASHRATH PRASAD Vs. PARVATI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 22-7-1998 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Tikamgarh in Hindu Marriage Case No. 30-A/1997 thereby dismissing the case of the appellant, has filed present first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Brief facts of the appeal are that as per Hindu Rituals, marriage of appellant was solemnised with the respondent in Village Mongna, Tehsil Jatara of District Tikamgarh and Gauna was performed in the year 1977 when appellant was a student. In the year 1983, he joined on the post of an Assistant Professor. He was transferred from Raigarh to Tikamgarh in the year 1988 and in the year, 1990 when he was again transferred from Tikamgarh to Khurai, District Sagar, he remained with the respondent. Allegation against the respondent is that she, being an illiterate and ill-mannered lady, was not allowing his younger brother to stay with the appellant for pursuing his studies. She used to beat appellant's brother and tear his clothes. She did not even care for food of appellant and his brother. She used to abuse and quarrel with the appellant and his parents. She did not allow the appellant to perform his marital obligations and used to tell appellant that he should marry with his mother, aunt (chachi) and younger brother's wife. Out of their wedlock, one child was born who died subsequently. In the year 1991, she gave birth to female child. She alongwith her female child and jewelery left the house of appellant on 3-12-1991 and went to the house of her father. Being dissatisfied with her, appellant 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 had been living separately and there was no possibility of amicable settlement between them in future.

(2.) The respondent/wife in her written statement pleaded that the allegations made by the appellant/husband were absurd and insulting. She also submitted that she never treated the appellant with cruelty. On the contrary, appellant was ill-treating and misbehaving with her and making absurd allegations against her. Insofar as question of desertion was concerned, she contended that she was not living separately on her own accord but in fact, she was forced to live separately because the appellant/husband was not ready and willing to live with her due to her illiteracy and dark complexion. Due to her delivery and ailment she was not able to prepare food. The appellant kicked her out and since then she had been living with her parents. She had not brought any jewelery but in fact the appellant had retained her Stridhan with him. On number of occasions, her father and brother had requested the appellant to keep respondent with him but the appellant did not agree because of her illiteracy and dark complexion and forced her to divorce.

(3.) On the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and parties adduced their evidence.