RAJESH MAKHIJA Vs. MAMTA ALIAS SHALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the husband-defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 15th February 2004 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Morena, in Civil Suit No. 39-A/2002, whereby the Court below has allowed, an application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and granted divorce en the ground of cruelty.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-wife filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that she married with the defendant on 8-11-1997 at Morena as per the Hindu rites. According to her the engagement ceremony was held at Morena in February 1997 and a number of articles were given by her parents to the defendant at that time. After marriage she went to Aligarh with her husband on 9-11-1997 and resided with him for nearly one month. She found that her husband was habitual of drinking and when she tried to stop him from drinking he started her harassing and assaulting but she did not tell this fact to her parents for a number of days. But, when it became intolerable she Informed this fact to her parents and her brother Suresh went Aligarh to bring her but the husband refused to send wife and abused him and made a demand for motorcycle or Rs. 50,000/- in cash. Thereafter, the parents of the wife took her to their house with the help of some other persons but the husband again took her back by giving assurance that he will treat her well. But, she could not live with her husband for more than one month. In the month of December 99 the husband caused her injuries by iron rods and burnt her with hot iron plate. Ultimately, she left her husband's house on 31-5-2001 and then filed the present petition for divorce at Morena.

(3.) The defendant filed his written statement denying the allegations made in the petition. The defendant has also raised a plea about territorial jurisdiction. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed as many as nine issues and passed the decree for divorce by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.