BHIM SINGH Vs. SHASHI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -husband has filed this appeal against judgment date February 2, 2001, vide which his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the Act) for a decree of divorce was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts of this case are that marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on June 28, 1991, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Lajwana Khurd, district Jind. After marriage, both husband and wife resided at Narwana. Out of this wed-lock, one made child was born on October 28, 1995, who unfortunately died on November 10, 1995. Thereafter, another male child was born on November 2, 1996. Appellant-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act in the month of August, 1998, claiming a decree of divorce stating that from the very beginning, respondent had been disliking him. She was elder to him by two-three years and due to that, she had been dictating terms to him. She never bothered about her husband and other family members and relatives. Respondent had been stating that her marriage was solemnised under pressure. It was further averred that the respondent-wife at the instance of Balbir, elder brother of the husband, and his wife Mukesh, showed total disrespect and also misbehaved with the appellant. She did not allow the appellant to have access to her and she was in the habit of throwing utensils whenever he asked for food. All sorts of other allegations were also levelled against the respondent-wife. It was further stated that the respondent-wife had left the house in the month of January, 1997, without any rhyme or reason and she had taken away all her Stri Dhan and other valuable articles with her. By stating these facts, it was prayed that a decree of divorce be passed in favour of appellant-petitioner on the basis of cruelty and desertion as committed by the respondent-wife.

(3.) APPELLANT -petitioner filed replication to the written-statement, wherein he denied the allegations levelled against him and reiterated the allegations as made by him in his original petition.