RAMCHARAN RAGHUVANSHI Vs. UJALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dtd. 16/11/2022 passed in Case No.61-A of 2017 (HMA) by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ashok Nagar whereby the petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [in brevity '' the HM Act'']filed by husband seeking divorce on the ground of ''cruelty and desertion'' was dismissed.

(2.) The averments as made by appellant are that on 26th of April, 2014 his marriage was solemnized with respondent as per Hindu rites and rituals without any dowry. After a few days of marriage i.e. on 25/6/2014 for the first time, when respondent came to her in-laws house, she told him that she wanted to marry a boy of her choice but under pressure of her relatives, she married him against her will and did not like him. She stayed at her in-laws house for only three days and during this period, there was no physical relationship between them. When respondent came to her in-laws house for the second time, her behaviour and attitude was not good towards him and his family and she used to say that she is in job and does not know how to do household work. She stayed at her in-laws house for nearly 13-14 days and during this period, she created a discord by fighting and during this period, respondent did not allow him to establish physical relationship with her. After 14 days, on 25/6/2014 when respondent's father came to take her, respondent left matrimonial home with all jewellery, clothes and other essential documents viz. PAN Card, registration of tractor and motorcycle, bank passbook, his gold chain etc. He and his relatives made a lot of efforts to bring the respondent back, but respondent did not come saying that she does not like him and threatened that if appellant and his family members come to take her back, she will ruin their lives by implicating them in a false case.

(3.) The wife, in reply, denied the allegations levelled against her. On the contrary, it is pleaded that her father had given Rs.12.0013 lac and all household goods. Respondent took back her all belongings when she went to her in-laws house for the first time. She denied the allegation of respondent that respondent does not like appellant and also denied that she refused to establish physical relations with appellant. When she came to her in-laws house for the second time, behaviour and attitude of respondent and his parents remain changed. Appellant does not want respondent's talking with her parents and deliberately deprived her of marital happiness. Appellant used to tell her that he will never accept her as his wife as he does not like her. It is further pleaded that she had stayed at the house of appellant for the second time for one and a half month and during this period, appellant fought with her and did not establish physical relationship with her. She expressed that she performed her duties like an ideal wife, rather appellant deserted her and started for not living a married life together. She further pleaded that she is ready and willing to go to her in-laws house and live with her husband. It is further pleaded that she was subjected to cruelty by depriving her of marital bliss by not establishing the physical relationship with her and insulting by behaving indecently and abusing her in public. The behaviour and attitude of respondent and his parents towards her are not good.