VIJAY KUMAR SABHARWAL Vs. NEELAM DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, whereby the petition filed by Vijay Kumar Sabharwal, appellant, for dissolution of marriage of parties by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 4955 (hereinafter referred to as "HMA"), has been dismissed. The marriage of the parties was performed on 20.11.1989 at village Nurpur Bedi, District Ropar. A son namely, Deval was born out of this wedlock on 7.9.1990. A petition under Section 13 of the HMA was filed by the appellant which was dismissed on 9.4.2001. As per averments set out by the appellant, the respondent is guilty of subjecting him to cruelty and deserting him without any reasonable cause. He has levelled allegations that the respondent-wife had been staying in the matrimonial home for a few days in a month and most of the time stayed in her parental house at Nurpur Bedi, as she was working as a teacher in a Government school at Takhatgarh. She did not seek her transfer to a place near Chandigarh as promised before marriage. She created scenes and quarrels on petty matters, insulted and abused the appellant and his parents. The respondent refused to cook food and did not attend to her domestic duties and insisted upon a separate residence but the appellant could not accede to her demand being the only son of his old parents and on account of financial constraints. The respondent caused a lot of tension for the family due to which the aged father of the appellant suffered heart problem. The respondent did not attend the last rites of her father-in-law and did not bother to visit the appellant when he remained admitted in PGI and operated upon for piles in December, 1992. She did not allow the appellant to meet their child and instigated the child against him. She left the matrimonial home in January, 1993 and did not return.

(2.) The respondent in reply, controverted the allegations levelled against her. She challenged the maintainability of the petition as an earlier petition filed by the appellant on the same set of allegations was dismissed vide judgment dated 9.4.2001. She has averred that the appellant and his family members used to misbehave with her without any reason, and though she was always ready and willing to live with the appellant and tried to persuade him to rehabilitate her in her matrimonial home but the appellant turned down her request. The appellant never cared for minor son of the parties or the respondent. She was forced to stay away from the matrimonial home and cannot be blamed for the wrongs committed by the appellant himself.

(3.) The appellant filed replication reiterating his averments of the petition and controverted the plea raised by the respondent.