SMT. VINEETA CHOUDHARY Vs. RADHEYSHYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the wife/appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter shall be referred as 'the Act' in short) against the judgment and decree dated 22/09/2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Multai District Betul (M.P.) whereby the marriage between the appellant and respondent/husband has been dissolved on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion. The decree of divorce has been granted in favour of the respondent/husband. The court below has further directed that the respondent/husband will pay maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month from the date of decree till the appellant enters into re-marriage. The court below has directed that the child of the appellant and respondent namely Abhinav shall stay with his father who will provide him the best education and facilities. It has also been directed by the trial Court that the appellant will be at liberty to meet her son at any time without there being any restriction in this regard.

(2.) . The relevant fact soft he case in brief are that the respondent/husband filed a petition under section 13 (1) of the Act on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion on the part of his wife. It is undisputed fact that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 18/01/1997 as per Hindu Rites and out of their wedlock one son namely Abhinav was born who is now aged about 12 years. The respondent/husband has submitted that right from very inception of the marriage behaviour of the appellant was noncooperative and obstinate and she was verbally abusive. She expressed her dislikes towards the appellant and his family and gradually she started misbehaving with the respondent. The respondent is employed in the Indian Railways on the post of Station Master. According to him, it was not possible for him to stay at one place with the family and he was often required to go in the shift of 12 hours each as he was included in the running shifts of Railways. He asserts that because of the said fact appellant was aggressive and wanted that the respondent should spend the full time with her without devoting any time for the duties of service. He alleged that the appellant did not want to live with him and used to unnecessarily suspect his character. It was also alleged by him that she was verbally abusive and used to comment that he is a fool and impotent. It was further alleged that she had never showed any concern for him even when he was not well and was hospitalized at Nagpur and during the crisis period also she did not live with him and did not take any care. She has always been busy on FACEBOOK chatting and mobile. For last more than two years, she is living separately and there is no cohabitation amongst them. He has asserted that she is not interested to continue with the relationship.

(3.) The appellant denied all these averments and stated that the respondent is responsible for all these situations as he is not interested to continue the marital relationship with her.