SUBHASH Vs. SHEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is husband's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20-2-2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide which his petition under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') for dissolution of marriage by way of divorce has been dismissed.

(2.) The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 19-2-1997. Out of the wedlock, one male child was born on 2-8-1998. According to husband, the conduct of the respondent-wife was arrogant right from the day of marriage. A number of times, she insulted the appellant as well as his parents. She did not even allow to take their child in his lap on the pretext that appellant was suffering from tuberculosis. On one occasion she even described the appellant as eunuch. About 3 years before filing the petition, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home along with their son and went to her parents house. In spite of the best efforts she did not join the appellant and deserted him without any reasonable and sufficient cause. The petition was contested by the respondent-wife denying the averments made in the petition. She denied having treated the appellant with cruelty or having deserted him. Rather, her stand was that the husband and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by her parents. They made various demands, but her parents were not in a position to meet their demands and as such, differences developed between the parties. The respondent-wife pleaded that appellant is a person of very short temperament and she was turned out of the matrimonial home by her husband himself. She further pleaded that before filing the divorce petition, the husband had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, but the same was withdrawn by him and it was nowhere mentioned in the order passed by the Court that respondent-wife had refused to join the company of her husband.

(3.) The trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence produced by both the parties, came to the conclusion that husband has failed to prove the ground of cruelty as well as desertion. The wife had always been ready to reside with the husband without any condition. On the other hand, the husband categorically stated in his cross-examination that he is not ready to take the respondent-wife with him from the Court complex. As such, the trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant- husband.