RAJU Vs. PINTU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raju (husband) has filed the instant appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2011, passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Narnaul, whereby on the petition filed by Pintu (respondent No.1 herein), marriage between the appellant and respondent No.1 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13 (2) (iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Though the appellant-husband contested the petition, but he failed to pay interim maintenance and litigation expenses to the respondentwife, as fixed by the trial court. Therefore, his defence was struck off.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-husband has raised two submissions. Firstly, that except the statement of the respondent-wife that she has repudiated the marriage on 8.10.2009, there is no other evidence toFAO No. M-9 of 2012 -3- corroborate her version, therefore, she has failed to establish the repudiation of the marriage before attaining the age of eighteen years. Secondly, learned counsel submits that the respondent-wife has allegedly repudiated the marriage on the foundation that her husband was living in adultery and when she objected to it, the appellant-husband gave beatings to her. But she has failed to establish the alleged adultery and cruelty, therefore, she has failed to prove the very foundation of repudiation of the marriage. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the trial court has committed grave illegality while dissolving the marriage on the ground of its repudiation.