SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. VEERANWALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant -husband against the dismissal of a divorce petition filed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

(2.) BEFORE commencement of the hearing, I asked the parties, who were present in Court, whether reconciliation was possible and while the respondent -wife was willing to return to the matrimonial home, the husband was not agreeable. Marriage between the parties took place on 15.8.1982. A son was born out of this wedlock who is living with the respondent -wife. The husband filed a divorce petition on 29.9.1994 alleging, Inter alia, that the wife had wrongly represented that she was 29/30 years at the time of marriage white in fact, she was 38 -39 years that time; the husband filed a petition for annulment of marriage but he withdrew the same on the intervention of the respectable; the wife dragged the husband into constant litigation and filed a petition 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 19.4.1984; she filed a complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code; she filed a petition before the District Magistrate for permission to prosecute the -husband and his family members; she got the husband detained in a false complaint for the whole night, she made complaints to the higher authorities; the husband was called by the police on a complaint of the wife; the husband had to shift his house on account of harassment by the wife as she was unable to pull on with the husband as well as the neighbours, the wife called her mother to live in the house of the husband and the husband had to live in the school premises where he was working and on 25.6.1991, the wife left the matrimonial home; a complaint dated 29.7.1994 was made to the Director, Public Instructions, U.T. Chandigarh alleging that the husband was having illicit relations with one Madhu; earlier she had levelled allegation of illicit relations with the mother of Madhu which tarnished his image; the wife made false allegations for claiming maintenance and she suspected the character of the husband. The wife contested the petition and submitted, inter alia, that the husband had been demanding dowry, he did not turn up to see the child when the child was bom and she had to seek maintenance; she had to seek permission for prosecution under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and to file a complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code; she had also to make a complaint to the Istri Sabha and to the concerned authorities.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.