SHILPA HARDAHA Vs. PRAVEEN KACHHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal was admitted on 5/1/2022 but with the consent of parties, is heard finally, whereby the appellant/defendant/wife has challenged the judgment and decree dtd. 11/08/2001 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandla in Civil Suit No.23-A/2018 (RCSHM No.130/2018) allowing the petition under Sec. 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent/plaintiff/husband, resulting into decree of divorce on the ground of adultery.

(2.) In short the facts are that the plaintiff and defendant were married on 05/05/2018 as per Hindu rituals. It is alleged that within 4-5 days of marriage the defendant left the matrimonial home and started residing alone in a rented house at Mehgaon (Distt-Bhind). It is alleged that lastly on 10/06/2018 the plaintiff and defendant resumed cohabitation but thereafter the defendant avoided to come back and upon having suspicion the plaintiff informed the incident to his parents, thereupon father of the plaintiff along with his friend Sunil Benjamin reached the defendant's residence at Mehgaon at 7:30 p.m., but the defendant did not open the door for about 15 minutes and thereafter one person named Adil came out from the defendant's room and despite asking defendant did not disclose the identity and relationship with Adil. Accordingly, the plaintiff/husband making allegations of adultery against the defendant/wife, filed the petition for divorce.

(3.) The defendant appeared and filed reply denying the allegations of adultery and contended that since prior to marriage she was working as a staff nurse in Primary Health Center Mehgaon, Distt. Bhind which was not liked by the plaintiff and he was pressurizing the defendant to leave the job but upon denial, he has made false allegations against the defendant. It is further contended that she has no relation with Adil, who was working as a computer operator in the Primary Health Center, Mehgaon who left the job in the year 2017 and she has always tried her best to continue with matrimonial relations but the plaintiff always pressurized the defendant to leave the job. It is also contended that from the wedlock, a daughter Sanvi was born on 30/1/2019 and there being no coordination in between the plaintiff and defendant, they are residing separately. It is also contended that during reconciliation proceedings the defendant went her matrimonial house and they resumed cohabitation but later on the plaintiff evicted the defendant from his house. Then the defendant was constrained to file complaint against the plaintiff, however she still wants to live with the plaintiff. On inter alia contentions, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the petition.