PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. KIRAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 1.8.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Shimla in HMA Petition No. 29 -S/3 of 2014/11.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Additional District Judge(II) Shimla, for the dissolution of marriage between the parties by way of a decree of divorce. According to the averments made in the petition, marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnised in the month of March, 1993 at Hamirpur, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Both the parties cohabited as husband -wife. Out of said wedlock a daughter and a son were born. Attitude and behaviour of the respondent was cordial towards the appellant but after 4 -5 months of their marriage, all of a sudden, her behaviour became very harsh, cruel and insulting towards the appellant. Respondent started pressurizing and compelling the appellant to reside separately from the parents. There was no one to look after and maintain the old aged mother and sister after the death of father of the appellant. Respondent stopped doing minor household works and pressurized the appellant to live separately. Respondent used to misbehave and used abusive language against the mother and sister of the appellant. Matter was amicably settled between the parties by way of compromise. However there was no change in the attitude of the respondent. Separate accommodation was also provided to them in the month of October 1998. Respondent left the matrimonial home in October, 2008. She also developed unwanted relations with one Shri Gurjeet Singh. According to the appellant, he was treated with cruelty by the respondent. She deserted the appellant without assigning any sufficient reasons.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent. She has denied that she treated the appellant with cruelty. She had never pressurized the appellant to live separately from his family. Appellant was responsible for forcing the respondent to live with her parents. Rejoinder was filed by the appellant. Issues were framed by the learned Additional District Judge on 18.8.2012.