PARVATI Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS D. B. Civil Appeal No. 986/96 preferred by the appellant-wife against the judgment and decree dated 31. 01. 1996, passed by the learned Family Court, Ajmer, in the Case No. 103/1992, by which, the Family Court allowed the petition of the respondent-husband filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act and passed the decree of dissolution of marriage.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case giving rise of this appeal are that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnised on 2. 7. 1978. At the time of marriage, the respondent was 11 years of age and the appellant was 10 years of age. THErefore, according to Hindu Customs, the `gona' (marriage) took place on 26. 6. 1986 and they lived together as husband and wife at Ajmer. It was alleged that the behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent was not good and that she left her husband's house on her own wishes and went to her parental house at Jaipur. When she left her husband's house, she was having pregnancy of three months. It was alleged that against the wishes of respondent the appellant aborted herself and by way of this cruel conduct towards the husband who found that it is difficult for him to live with her because of the reasons that she abused him, manhandled with him, threatened him to commit suicide, levelled allegation that he had illicit relation with his Bhabhi, and she quarreled with him in front of the neighbours. As per the respondent, this forced him to file a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. THE learned Family Court framed the following issues to decide the application filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(3.) RESPONDENT Prem Singh examined himself as AW-1. He deposed that after `gona', on 26. 6. 86, when he brought the appellant to live with him, her behavior was normal for sometime. She started thereafter quarrelling with the respondent and the members of his family. She started misbehaving with the respondent and his brothers and sisters and started beating them. When the respondent tried to pacify her, she used to say that she did not like the respondent and that her parents got her married to a person whom she did not like. He further deposed that the appellant used to go away to Jaipur time and again and the respondent used to take her home every time. She used to live normal for some time and again used to start misbehaving. The respondent further deposed that because of such conduct of the appellant, he had to suffer intimidation and embarrassment in the locality. The respondent further deposed that the appellant used to allege that the respondent has illicit relations with his brother's wife, which was a false allegation. The respondent suffered mental agony because of such a false allegation against him when the elder sister of the appellant was the wife of the brother of the respondent. The respondent further deposed that the appellant used to threaten the respondent that she will commit suicide. She also used to threaten the respondent that she would lodge a report with the police to implicate the respondent in a false case. She used to go away from the house and the respondent used to bring her back after pacifying her. The respondent stated that on 6. 11. 88, the appellant had threatened to commit suicide and after quarrelling with the respondent, went away to her parents' place to Jaipur. At that time, she was carrying pregnancy of three months. When after sometime, the respondent went to Jaipur, he came to know that the appellant had got the pregnancy terminated by abortion without the consent of the respondent. This caused grave mental agony and shock to the respondent because of which he remained ill for two months. The respondent further deposed that the appellant did not return with him to her matrimonial home and even after that, misbehaved with the parents of the respondent when they had gone to her parents' place, for bringing her back to the respondent's place. When the respondent went to bring her back, he was ill treated by the parents of the appellant and he was given threats of being beaten up and locked up through the police. Whenever he went to take the appellant back home, the respondent was ill treated by the parents of the appellant. He further deposed that the appellant had deprived him of conjugal relations for the last seven years. Ultimately, he deposed that because of such a conduct of the appellant, the respondent had suffered physically and mentally and also in social status and it had become a subject of ridicule everywhere. He further deposed that because of the appellant's conduct, his family has dis-integrated. Because of the false allegation of keeping illicit relations with the brother's wife, the brother's family and other members of the family have stopped visiting the respondent and for this reason, he did not want to live with the appellant and desires dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce.