BALA DEVI Vs. VIRENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARTIES to the present lis are husband and wife. They solemnized marriage on 19th October, 2001 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. One female child is born to them out of this wedlock. Respondent -husband was residing in Housing Board Colony at Dharamshala along with his mother and three unmarried sisters at the time of marriage. Two brothers of the respondent -husband are residing separately. The family arranged the marriage with all enthusiasm, hopes and expectations for long and happy married life to both of them, however, the behavior of the petitioner allegedly became indifferent with the family and intolerable. She started behaving with her husband and other members of his family indifferently. She was working as Anganwari worker at village Lanj Tehsil and District Kangra and left matrimonial house for that place without any information to the respondent. She allegedly started quarreling with old mother of the respondent and also his sisters. She allegedly made complaints against her husband to the police and also the Women Cell. She leveled allegations qua his chastity and made the imputations that he had relations with his sisters and also called him womanizer having relations with other ladies. They both, therefore, started living separately since 2002 i.e. after about one year of marriage. The petitioner and her minor daughter have also been awarded maintenance allowance being paid to them by the respondent. The respondent has also made available her rented accommodation at Dharamshala where she is residing with her daughter.

(2.) THE strained relations between the two led in filing petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala after holding full trial has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has treated the respondent with cruelty. Consequently, dissolved the marriage by a decree of divorce dated 09.01.2013, under challenge in the main appeal.

(3.) IN reply, the stand taken by the respondent -husband is that after the institution of the litigation and after the decision of the divorce petition, the petitioner never made any endeavour to sort out the dispute amicably. It has, therefore, been submitted that the grounds she raised for condonation of delay are absolutely wrong, false and baseless and not sufficient to constitute "sufficient cause" required to be shown for condonation of delay.