SEEMA Vs. PARVEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant-wife Seema for dissolution of marriage with respondent-husband Parveen by way of decree of divorce on the ground of desertion, stands dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, on 07.03.2015, which judgment has been challenged in the present appeal.

(2.) The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 07.03.2000 at Rohtak, according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies and they lived together as husband and wife at village Bond Kalan. The first female child namely Simran was born on 25.01.2001 at Rohtak at the parental home of the appellant. None of the family members from her matrimonial home came to meet her rather respondent-husband refused to talk to her on phone. Many panchayats were convened and on that basis, she was taken back in her matrimonial home in the month of March, 2003. The parties again cohabited and another child (male) namely Kamal was born on 24.02.2004 at her parental house. The same story again repeated, however, she was taken back to her matrimonial home in the year 2005. She was given beatings by the respondent-husband on trivial matters at the instance of his mother. Thereafter, to save the marriage, the parents of the appellant made arrangement and the respondent started doing some private job at Faridabad where he along with the appellant and children started to stay. After two months, he left the job and came back to his village Bond Kalan.

(3.) On 16.01.2006, the appellant was given severe beatings by the respondent-husband and his mother and was turned out of her matrimonial home along with the children. The children who were playing at home were picked up and taken away by the mother of the respondent with an assurance that she would be taken back to her matrimonial home a week thereafter, the children were taken away from her. She was not allowed to meet her children by the respondent-husband and since January, 2006, she has been forced to live with her parents at Rohtak, whereas, respondent is living at Bond Kalan by deserting the appellant-wife. All efforts made by her to go back to her matrimonial home have failed.