HARI CHAND Vs. LEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the appellant -husband has assailed the judgment dated 31st March, 1994 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, exercising the powers of District Judge whereby his petition under section 13 (1 -a) and (1 -b) of Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act) was dismissed.

(2.) The admitted facts of the case are that the parties were married in December 1978 and out of their wedlock a son was born on 28 -5 -1981. After a few years of their marriage their relations became strained and since 1983 they have been litigating for their respective rights before various Courts. The respondent -wife filed a petition under section 125, Cr. P. C. for her maintenance and the maintenance of her minor child before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, but it was compromised and she accompanied the appellant -husband to her matrimonial home. But again another petition under section 125, Cr. P. C. was filed on 1 -5 -1989 which was allowed on 4 -12 -1991 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, awarding a sum of Rs. 400 p. m. as maintenance to respondent -wife and a sum of Rs. 200 per month to minor child master Suman. This order was maintained up to High Court as both the revision petitions under section 397, Cr. P, C. before the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, and petition under section 482, Cr. P. C, before this Court were dismissed. In the meantime, on 12 -2 -1989, the appellant -husband had filed petition under section 6 of Hindu Minor and Guardianship Act for the custody of minor Master Suman which was dismissed on 26 -10 -1991 by Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, Camp at Ghumarwin.

(3.) It was in this background that the present petition was filed on 1 -5 -1992 for dissolving their marriage by way of decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty. As per the allegations made in the petition, the respondent -wife left the house of the appellant -husband on her own and without his consent on 13 -7 -1986 and did not resume his company since then It is further stated that the respondent -wife wrote a letter to his Commandant, C. I. S, F. under whom he was working as Inspector, on the basis of which his explanation was called for, which caused great harassment and mental agony as well as disturbance in his normal life which amounts to real cruelty as the allegations made in the complaint regarding his remarriage to another girl named Manchali Devi were totally wrong and imaginary.