BHARTI SHARMA Vs. SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 3.2.1999, passed by the learned District Judge, Una, in H.M.A. Petition No. 13/1996, whereby a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties has been granted in favour of the respondent.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are as follows : The respondent herein instituted a petition Under Section 13(1)(ia), (ib) of the Act against the appellant for a decree for divorce. His case, as made out in the petition, is that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on May 11,1986 according to the Hindu rites at village Khad, Teh. and Distt, Una. After the marriage, parties lived and cohabited as husband and wife at Yamuna Nagar and a female child named Puja was born out of the wedlock on 1.4.1987. While residing at Yamuna Nagar after the marriage, the appellant started compelling the respondent to leave Yamuna Nagar and to reside at her parents' house at village Khad and to serve her parents. The respondent, however, advised the appellant to the contrary. The appellant then came to her parents' house for delivery of the child which was delivered in District Hospital, Una, on 1.4.1987. After the birth of the child the appellant adopted an attitude of confrontation with the respondent and refused to live with him at Yamuna Nagar and demanded that the respondent should settle in village Khad with the appellant and her parents. The respondent advised the appellant not to insist on this wrong demand but the appellant stuck to her stand and refused to live with the respondent at Yamuna Nagar. In November or December, 1987, the respondent went to village Khad and with the intervention of the relatives and well wishers, took the appellant to Yamuna Nagar where she again started compelling him to live at village Khad and to serve her parents. On refusal of the respondent, the attitude of the appellant towards the respondent became harsh and she started treating the respondent with cruelty by picking up quarrels on trifles and abusing and insulting him in the presence of friends and relatives. She would call the respondent 'Haramjada', 'Napunsak' and 'Bewakoof'. This behaviour of the appellant lowered the reputation and status of the respondent in the eyes of his relatives and friends. The appellant also stopped cooking food or even serving tea to the respondent and his guests and performing the marital duties. The respondent advised the appellant to live like a homely wife but in vain. On the contrary, the appellant started threatening the respondent that she would burn herself or take poison if the respondent did not agree to live in village Khad. She also threatened the respondent to leave the matrimonial house for ever. On 3.6.1988, the appellant voluntarily and without the consent and will of the respondent, left the matrimonial house, declaring that thereafter she would not treat the respondent as her husband. Persuastion and requests of the respondent to the contrary yielded no fruitful results. After 3.6.1988, the appellant deserted the respondent for a continuous period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition without any reasonable and justifiable cause. Several requests of the respondent made to the appellant to join the society of the respondent, were turned down by the appellant. Even the father of the appellant, despite requests, refused to send the appellant, to her matrimonial house. The said cruel act and conduct and the desertion by the appellant caused reasonable apprehension in the mind of the respondent that it is not possible for the parties to live, as husband and wife. The appellant filed a petition Under Section 125, Cr. P.C. and during the proceedings in the said petition also, she refused to join the company of the respondent. It is further claimed in the petition that the aforesaid acts of cruelty and desertion on the part of the appellant had not been condoned by the respondent and there had been no unnecessary and improper delay in filing the divorce petition. It has also been averred in the petition that earlier a petition Under Section 13 of the Act was filed by the respondent against the appellant which was dismissed on 2.4.1991 and another litigation between them was a petition filed by the appellant Under Section 125, Cr.P.C. wherein maintenance was allowed on 1.4.1994. Hence, the petition by the respondent for a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) THE respondent filed rejoinder to the reply of the appellant wherein he denied all the grounds of defence as taken in the reply and reaffirmed the averments as made in the petition.