BAIKUNTH SAGAR Vs. SARAV MANGLA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant-husband filed a divorce petition alleging that marriage between the parties took place in the year 1982 and a male child was born on 8.10.1983; the wife used to pick up quarrel on some pretext or the other though the husband and his family members were good and kind enough towards her; the husband did not accept any dowry; the wife refused to do the household work and used to taunt the husband that he was not earning sufficient; in July 1983 father of the wife met with an accident and the husband and wife went to see him, but after going there, she refused to return to the matrimonial home; the child was born when the wife was with her parents; the husband visited the nursing home and paid the expenses of delivery, but even when the husband went to meet his child, the wife was angry and made allegations against mother of the husband; with the intervention of the respectable persons, reconciliation was arrived at and the wife and child were brought back to the matrimonial home when the child was three years old; the wife continued to misbehave and she levelled shameful allegations against husband and his parents and finally on 18.4.1995, the wife again left the matrimonial home; she lodged complaint with Nari Raksha Samiti, but after hearing the version of the husband, the complaint was dismissed; the wife lodged a false complaint with the police station of demand of dowry; which was not accepted; the husband filed a divorce petition in June, 1987, which was compromised before the Lok Adalat on 12.3.1988 and the parties reached an understanding that the husband will live separate from his parents with the wife in House No. 256, Sector 7-A, Faridabad, but the wife instead of resuming cohabitation left for her parents house. This divorce petition was filed on 3.5.1988 stating that cause of action accrued on 14.3.1988 when the wife refused to resume cohabitation which cause of action was still continuing.

(2.) THE wife filed a reply denying the allegations and stated that the husband harassed her for demand of dowry, on account of which she was forced to live separately and all expenses of delivery etc. were given by the wife and her parents and she resumed cohabitation on an assurance from the husband that he would keep her and the child with love, but thereafter, she was again thrown out of the matrimonial home on 18.4.1985; the earlier divorce petition was compromised, but inspite of the compromise, the husband did not cohabit with the wife and left the rented house by taking away dowry articles etc. It was also alleged that earlier divorce petition was compromised by the husband to avoid to pay maintenance, which had been ordered.

(3.) AFTER considering the evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the divorce petition holding that ground of desertion was not proved as the petition was filed on 3.5.1988, though the wife admittedly lived with the husband after compromise dated 12.3.1988; the ground of cruelty was not established as PW-2 Devi Chand Sharma merely stated that the wife did not show respect to him, but did not say that she ever ill-treated or abused him; no other relation or neighbour was examined; the wife deposed on oath that she never ill-treated the husband or his parents; she sent telegram Ex. R-2 to the effect that the husband had deserted her and taken away all her articles and RW-2 Paras Ram Sharma also supported the version of the wife. It was also held that since the earlier petition was withdrawn on 12.3.1988, no allegation had been made thereafter with regard to cruelty or desertion on account of which a (sic) petitionwas barred by res judicata.