SANT KUMAR DESHMUKH Vs. CHITRALEKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-7-1996 in Civil Suit No. 40-A/1994 passed by I Additional District Judge, Durg by which petition u/S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 of the appellant was dismissed and decree for divorce as prayed by him was refused.

(2.) Undisputedly, the parties were married on 3-5-1984 and two children were born out of the said wedlock. It is also not in dispute that on an application filed by the respondent u/S. 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a decree for judicial separation was passed in her favour, by judgment and decree dated 9-9-1993. The case of the petitioner/appellant is that the marriage between the parties subsisted only for 2 years and 4 months and thereafter, the parties developed bitter relations between them. This bitterness developed on account of the fact that the respondent had inflated ego, as she was an employed lady. She had also filed a false case against the appellant and his family members u/S. 498-A of the I.P.C. in which they were acquitted. Thereafter, on the application of the respondent u/S. 10 of Hindu Marriage Act, the I Additional Dist. Judge has passed a decree for judicial separation on 9-9-1993. Even thereafter, the parties never resided together, neither was it possible for them to live together. Therefore, the petitioner/appellant prayed that a decree for divorce declaring the marriage between the parties as dissolved, be passed.

(3.) The respondent denied the above allegations. It was denied that the bitterness was on account of the false ego on her part. It was also denied that she had falsely lodged report due to which offence u/S. 498-A of the I.P.C. was registered against the appellant and his family members. It was further alleged by the respondent that the appellant had married Rohnibai Deshmukh D/o Donuram Deshmukh on 10th July, 1988, who is living with the appellant. The appellant and Smt. Rohnibai have two children from the said relationship. Therefore, the respondent was left with no option, but to file an application u/S. 10 of Hindu Marriage Act forjudicial separation, which was allowed. It has been urged that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on the ground that the said judgment and decree dated 9-9-1998 has been passed in favour of the respondent.