ARUN DEV SHARMA Vs. SUNITA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Hissar, dated June 10, 1986, whereby the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter called the Act), for divorce filed on behalf of the husband Arun Dev Sharma, was dismissed.

(2.) THE marriage between the parties was solemnised on November 19, 1986. Earlier also, the husband had filed petition No. 166 -M of 1983, under section 13 of the Act, which was dismissed on April 3, 1984, vide copy of the judgment Exhibit P. 1. The present petition was filed on September 11, 1985, on the allegations that the wife had been avoiding the company of the appellant, the husband, since April 20, 1982. The desertion on her part caused him great mental agony and pain He fully realised that she was not willing to perform her duties as s wife to him and his family as she was more in love with her job and her parents as shown from her attitude and conduct towards him. He tried to bring her round through the panchayat, but all her efforts failed Thus, he sought the dissolution of his marriage with her by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. In the written statement, it was pleaded that the petition for divorce was not maintainable as a similar petition on the same grounds was dismissed on April 3, 1984. It was also alleged that the wife had come to join the society of the husband on September 28, 1982, but she was driven out of the house on September 29, 1982, and was not permitted to take her ornaments and clothes etc. On merits, it was maintained that though cohabitation was not resumed after September 29, 1982, yet the husband had made false allegations against her in addition to the allegations contained in the previous divorce petition She bemoaned that as she was unable to meet the demands of money made from her by her husband's mother, in his presence, had gone to the extent of holding out threat to her that in case she dared to visit her house in future, her life would be in danger. In the earlier petition, the husband had made unfounded allegations of unchasity against her which were held to be false in the previous petition. According to her, she had come to join her husband on May 14, 1982, but on that day, he left the house and slept at his friend's house only with the object to avoid the sharing of the bed with her. It was due to the callous behaviour of the husband that she had left for her parents' house on May 25, 1982 A plea was also taken that the petition was unnecessarily delayed. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: -

(3.) WHETHER the filing of the petition has been unnecessarily delayed?