NARAIN SINGH Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was petitioner, who filed petition against respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ˜the Act) for dissolution of marriage which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Solan, hence, the petitioner husband has come to appeal against the judgment, decree dated 9.5.2003 passed in H.M. Petition No. 47 -S/3 of 2001.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage which was solemnized by him with respondent on 4.5.1992. The grievance of the appellant, projected by him in the petition, is that parties lived together for brief time at village Sai, Tehsil Arki. The appellant was working at Shimla in I.B. and the respondent was working as JBT Teacher in Government Primary School, Surajpur (Piplughat). In January, 1996 appellant was transferred to Chandigarh and respondent was also transferred to Government Primary School, Balera. The respondent stayed at village Sai till January, 1997 with the family of the appellant. It has been alleged that during this period her conduct with her in -laws was rough and dominating. She used to insult the parents of the appellant and also the appellant. She levelled allegations against appellant for having adulterous relations with women at Chandigarh. She refused to discharge her matrimonial relations and also deprived the appellant physical access to her. She adopted hostile attitude and cruel behaviour towards appellant and left matrimonial home. She threatened to take drastic steps in case she was compelled to return to matrimonial home. The appellant and his father tried their best to persuade appellant to continue matrimonial tie but the respondent had brought the cohabitation to a permanent break for the last about five years. It has also been stated that the appellant had earlier filed petition under Section 13 of the Act against the respondent but due to some mistake that petition was dismissed in default. On these facts, the appellant filed divorce petition against respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Navlesh Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that the evidence has not been properly appreciated by learned Court below. The appellant has proved cruelty as well as desertion in the present case. There is irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and, therefore, no purpose would be served by keeping the matrimonial tie and on this ground also, it has been submitted, the appellant is entitled to dissolution of marriage. The learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment, decree. He has also submitted that the petition filed by the appellant is not in accordance with the rules, vague allegations have been levelled in the petition whereas the requirement of the rules is that the allegations of cruelty and desertion should be specific. He has submitted that appellant has miserably failed to prove cruelty and desertion on the part of the respondent. The appellant cannot be permitted to take shelter of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and to seek divorce on this ground when he himself is to be blamed for keeping distance from the respondent. He has also submitted that appellant had earlier filed divorce petition against the respondent on the same grounds which was dismissed in default on 5.6.2001, hence another petition for divorce on the same grounds is not maintainable.