ROMA Vs. NILESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act') is directed against the order dated 4.4.2011 passed by the District Judge, Dungarpur in Misc. Civil Case No.23/2009, whereby the application filed by the respondent - Husband under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of the marriage has been accepted and the marriage solemnized between the parties on 11.3.2007 has been ordered to be dissolved.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case may be noticed thus : the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act on 2.4.2009, inter -alia with the averments that the marriage between the respondent and appellant was solemnized on 11.3.2007 and on the first night of the marriage, the wife refused marital cohabitation (sexual intercourse) and told the respondent that her parents have married her against her will to him, she does not like him and would never accept him as husband; from the date of marriage to the date of application, there has been no marital cohabitation between the parties; after the marriage, the wife stayed in the matrimonial home for very short period and would leave for her parents' house for one reason or the other and would not return back from 15 -20 days and from after five months of the marriage, she has stayed at her parents home. It was claimed that on SHITLA SAPTMI, the appellant went to her parents' home and returned back with her younger brother and told her that now she would stay with her parents and went back to her parents' home; the respondent informed his parents regarding the fact of lack of marital cohabitation and mental cruelty by the appellant, when they went to appellant's home and told them about lack of marital cohabitation and mental cruelty. However, no attention was paid to the same and they refused to send back the appellant.

(3.) A reply to the petition was filed by the appellant and the averments made in the petition were denied and it was claimed that few days after the marriage, the respondent started demanding dowry and she remained with the respondent for six months as wife and never refused marital cohabitation. However, in -greed of dowy, she was turned out of the matrimonial home and till such time she remained at matrimonial home, there was marital cohabitation as well. The averments relating to the efforts made by the respondent to bring the appellant back to the matrimonial home were all denied. Ultimately, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.