ANIL KUMAR JAMWAL Vs. REENA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 24.10.2018, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in HMA Petition No. 18/3 of 2017, titled as Shri Anil Kumar Jamwal Vs. Smt. Reena Devi, vide which, a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the appellant for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce, has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the appeal are that appellant-petitioner (husband) hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner' filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent-Reena Devi as per Hindu Rites on 15.01.2005. They lived peacefully in their village for some time after the marriage and out of the said wedlock, two children were born. After the birth of children, the behaviour of the respondent changed towards the appellant and she started abusing, maltreating and misbehaving with the petitioner. On numerous occasions, respondent left the house of the petitioner without any prior permission. On number of occasions, petitioner brought her back from the house of in-laws. He was also maltreated by the parents and brothers of the respondent, who threatened him with dire consequences and also dissuaded him from visiting the house of in-laws. According to the petitioner, on one occasion, the matter was got amicably settled between the parties with the help of nears and dears and respondent came back to her matrimonial house, however, after few days, she again started misbehaving and quarreling with the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there was no physical/biological relation between him and the respondent after the birth of their children. Respondent had caused mental as also physical cruelty to the petitioner. During the years 2005 to 2007, petitioner was posted at Jalandhar and w.e.f. 2007 to 2008, he remained posted at Baddi and since then, he was doing a private job at Shimla. Somewhere in the year 2009-2010, on the request of the petitioner, respondent remained with him at Shimla for about 10-15 days, but thereafter she deserted him in the month of January, 2010 and went to her parents house. It was also the case of the petitioner that in the year 2007, his parents had disowned him. His case was that respondent was hand-in-glove with his parents in getting him dis-owned from the property of his parents. His children were also residing with their grandparents. Petitioner was not even being permitted to visit his own house. As the parties were residing separately since last four years as from the date when the petition was filed and there were no chances of re-conciliation between the parties, the petitioner filed a petition praying for dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the respondent, inter alia, on the ground that it was the petitioner who has failed to maintain the respondent and their children, who were minor and school going. According to the respondent, petitioner had never spent even a single penny towards the education of the children. The factum of ill-treatment of the petitioner at the behest of respondent was emphatically denied. All other allegations levelled in the petition by the petitioner against the respondent were also denied. It was denied that respondent used to leave the matrimonial house without the prior permission of petitioner to go to her parental house. It was also denied that the parents or brothers of the respondent misbehaved with the petitioner or that he was threatened by them, as alleged. As per the respondent, while in Jalandhar, petitioner got entangled with some other girl. He came back at the insistence of his parents and other relatives. Petitioner while in Shimla, was living a life of adultery. It was only on account of his misdeeds that his parents had disowned him and in fact were supporting their daughter-in-law (respondent) and their grandchildren. It was denied that after the birth of the children, there was no physical/biological relation between the parties. As per the respondent, there was physical relation between them even in the month of February, 2015 when the petitioner visited his home. It was also the case of the respondent that petitioner constantly used to visit his parental house. It was denied by the respondent that parties were residing separately for the last four years and according to the respondent, it was the petitioner who was ill-treating and misbehaving with the respondent.