PARVEEN SINGH Vs. KANCHANA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment of District Judge, Kangra, in H.M.A. No. 79 of 1983 decided on 27 3 1985 thereby dismissing the petition of the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce or in the alternative under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of judicial separation. The appellant has a grievance against this judgment, therefore, he assails it by way of this appeal.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the marriage was solemnised between the parties on 1 3 1978 at Village Tikeri Dukhi in Tehsil Palampur according to Hindu rites. The appellant complained that there was no cohabitation with the respondent and when the respondent came to his house in October, 1978, the respondent was pregnant from some person other than the appellant. On October 20, 1978, the respondent complained stomachache and the mother of the appellant took her to Civil Hospital, Nurpur, where the doctor told the mother of the appellant, after medical examination of the respondent, that she was pregnant. The respondent was X rayed on 27 1 1979 when this fact was again confirmed. After that, the respondent was sent back to the house of her parents. In October, 1980, the father of the respondent sent her to his house but that time also the respondent was found pregnant from some other person than the appellant with the result that the respondent was sent back to the house of her parents. Thus, it is alleged that the respondent was living in adultery with respondent No. 2 (Prabhat Chand) and this fact finds mention in letter dated 1 3 1980. This conduct on the part of the respondent amounted to legal cruelty with which the appellant has been treated by the respondent. It has also been stated that the act of the respondent was neither connived at nor condoned by the appellant.

(3.) IN the replication, the appellant has reasserted the averments already given in the main petition. Besides, contentions of the respondent in the reply have been assailed.