NEM SINGH Vs. PUSHPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by Nem Singh against Pushpa Devi to challenge the dismissal of his petition for divorce filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The ground for divorce was cruelty and the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment dated November 2, 2000 came to the conclusion that Nem Singh failed to establish cruelty, was not entitled to divorce and consequently the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the petition. Hence Nem Singh has filed the present appeal. When the case was called no one appeared on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the order of this Court dated September 25, 2001 wherein it was recorded that the parties were present and had expressed their willingness to live together. Nem Singh being willing to take Pushpa Devi back to him and Pushpa Devi being willing to return to her matrimonial home. As a result of this order, Pushpa Devi returned to Nem Singh. However, on February 13, 2002 a certified copy of the petition filed by the parties under Section 13-B of the Act was taken on record as exhibit C-1. The said petition was accompanied by a copy of the order passed by the learned District Judge, Faridabad dated November 13, 2001 as well as a copy of the joint statement of the parties recorded on that date.

(2.) Subsequently it appears that the petition for divorce by mutual consent was dismissed on May 14, 2002 since Pushpa Devi withdrew her consent by stating that she had made her earlier statement under pressure and not of her own free will. Today when the case was called the appellant was absent. Consequently, the appellant's appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional district Judge was considered on the basis of the record which was perused with the help of the counsel for the respondent. The allegations of the appellant as regards the cruelty were that since the date of marriage on May 23, 1991, Pushpa Devi's behaviour towards him was crude and she used to pick up quarrels over flimsy grounds. She also left the house without his consent and did not provide him food on many occasions. She used to hurl abuses to her husband and members of his family. She threatened to commit suicide. In July, 1993, Pushpa Devi left the matrimonial home with her gold ornaments and valuable clothes and never returned. On earlier occasion as well the parties had compromised and Pushpa Devi had returned to her matrimonial home on March 11, 1995 but only lived with him for 15 days.

(3.) The learned Trial Judge recorded the evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that Pushpa Devi had all along been willing to live with her husband and perform her matrimonial duties whereas the husband was not willing to keep her as his wife. Therefore, there was no element of desertion and the husband had failed to prove either cruelty or desertions. The evidence of the appellant may show some trivial incidents of matrimonial discord but these taken individually or together do not constitute cruelty of the type which may entitle the appellant to divorce. There is no merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed.