AJAY PARTAP SINGH Vs. AMAR BALA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is husband's appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.4.2000 passed by Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh, who dismissed the petition of the petitioner-appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (here-in-after called 'the Act') against the wife Smt. Amar Bala Singh.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that appellant Ajay Partap Singh filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act against his wife Smt. Amar Bala Singh by inter alia pleading that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 4.6.1994 in village Atta Thana Paraspur, District Gonda (U.P.), and after the marriage the parties lived together as husband and wife, but no child was born out of this wedlock. It has been alleged by the appellant that the respondent has treated him with cruelty. Elaborating the ground of cruelty it is alleged by the appellant firstly that the respondent conceived a child but got the child aborted against his wishes as she was not interested to bear the child. It was then pleaded by the appellant that the respondent gave a threat that she would commit suicide by putting a needle inside a banana fruit and she would swallow the needle. The third incident of cruelty alleged by the appellant is that at the time of birthday celebration of his younger brother Manoj the respondent-wife misbehaved with him and went to the extent of saying to his relatives and friends that he was an idiot and was unable to do any job. It was further alleged by the petitioner-appellant that the respondent has left her matrimonial home on 27.10.1994 in his absence and thereafter she did not join his company and this wilful desertion on the part of the respondent-wife is itself a ground of cruelty. With these broad allegations, the petitioner-appellant prayed for a decree of divorce.

(3.) THE parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The petitioner-husband appeared as his own witness as PW1 and he also examined Sunita as PW2 and Smt. Inderjit as PW3. In rebuttal, the respondent examined Dinesh Kumar as PW2 and she appeared as her own witness as RW1. The learned trial court for the reasons given in paras 10 to 16 of the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the petitioner-appellant has failed to prove the incidents of cruelty and resultantly his petition was dismissed. The reasons of the trial Court are reproduced as follows :-