MUKESH KUNDU Vs. ANITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MUTUAL mistrust and acrimony, as between the appellant - husband and the respondent - wife, is too evident from the pleadings of the parties and also their self-serving statements, none of which is otherwise corroborated by any evidence of relevant and independent character.

(2.) THE marriage of the appellant and respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the husband and wife respectively) was solemnized in the month of May, 1988. Their inter-se relationship was far from easy from the very beginning. The husband had a grievance that the wife had been acting in a cruel and harsh manner from the inception of the marriage and that she was also a woman of easy virtue. In spite of the all out endeavours made by the husband, the wife did not improve her conduct under the above items of behaviour. The husband, who was employed (on ad-hoc basis) as a Supervisor in the Indian Tourism Development Corporation and was posted at Delhi, shifted to Delhi itself and started residing in a rented accommodation belonging to one Dharam Pal Mann. However, even there, the wife did not mend her behaviour. In fact, she developed an illicit relationship with respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the paramour). She became pRegulation nt with a child from the lions of the paramour. The child was aborted in the month of October 1992, without the consent of the appellant - husband. The husband brought the facts to the notice of his parents-in-law but they took it lightly and things did not improve. It was thereafter that the wife went over to reside at her natal house and she had been there for the past about eight months prior to the date of filing of the petition. The husband applied for the dissolution of marriage on plea of mental cruelty.

(3.) THE paramour did not enter appearance in spite of the effecting of substituted service (by publication of a court notice in a newspaper). The learned Trial Court framed the following issues :-