BASUDEV JATAV Vs. REKHA JATAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/husband has filed this appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 aggrieved by the judgment dated 21-9-2010 passed by the District Judge, Shivpuri, in Case No. 73/09 (HMA) by which the District Judge, Shivpuri, has refused to allow the application under Section 13(1)(1-A) and (1-B) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for decree of divorce against the respondent/wife. It is not disputed that the appellant and respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 2-6-2002 at Village Padora, District Shivpuri.

(2.) The appellant/husband has filed an application for divorce against respondent/wife on the ground of 'cruelty' and 'desertion'. Applicant has alleged before the Trial Court that after their marriage they lived peacefully for some time but after two years the respondent/wife changed her behaviour. She was not cooperating in the domestic work, she used to leave the matrimonial home and used to visit her maternal home without informing the applicant. On her request, the applicant got her admission in the Shivpuri College. She refused to cohabit with the applicant. She has been leaving the house of Shivpuri to go to her parental home. On 22-2-2006, she left her matrimonial home and took away the ornaments etc. The appellant/husband lodged a report at Police Chowki Physical, Shivpuri. The non-applicant has joined as Shiksha Karmi at Village Chak Kitondha where her maternal home is situated.

(3.) Per contra, the non-applicant has denied all the allegations and submitted that she has been living with the applicant, performing the marital obligations. She never refused to cohabit. She herself wanted to be a mother of child. The non-applicant also submitted that she has been good in studies, therefore, she got the job of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. Despite all these she wants to live with the applicant. She has never deserted him. The report lodged by the applicant is false and she did not took away the ornaments etc. with her, as has been alleged. She alleges that because of 'acne' in her face and due to her colour the applicant dislikes her and is not prepared to keep her with him. He has always been cursing his parents for getting him married to the non-applicant.