CHANANMAL Vs. BIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act') is directed against judgment and decree dated 27.05.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, whereby, the petition presented by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce has been rejected.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case may be noticed thus: the appellant - petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act without specifying any clause of the said section, inter alia, with the averments that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 14.07.1978 and, on the next day of the marriage, which was solemnized at her village, she came to her in -laws' place and started performing her matrimonial obligations; it was alleged that respondent Bimla was freelance by nature and would visit her parents' place without seeking permission from the petitioner and at her own sweet will and whenever she was told not to do so, she would start quarrelling; efforts were made by the petitioner to make her understand; her behaviour was quite disturbing and started affecting petitioner's reputation in the society; six years prior to filing of the petition (filed on 30.10.1992) efforts were made to make the respondent understand, however, her brother Ram Singh started quarrelling and refused to send the respondent to the matrimonial home; it was further alleged that respondent was staying at her parents' home for last six years on her own volition and they have no child; on account of respondent's said behaviour and freelance nature, she was not staying with the petitioner, which has resulted in mental shock to him and he is being deprived of his marital rights and his reputation in the society has been affected. Ultimatily, it was prayed that the marriage solemnized between the parties be dissolved by a decree of divorce.

(3.) THE trial court framed two issues; issue No.1 related to desertion and issue No.2 related to relief. On behalf of the petitioner - 5 witnesses were examined and on behalf of the respondent ­ 3 witnesses were examined. The trial court after thoroughly analyzing the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case of desertion. The trial court also came to the conclusion that in view of the statement of PW -3 Ram Pratap and the fact that after the appointment of the petitioner as Teacher, the respondent was staying with her brother, it appears a probable reason that after the appointment of the petitioner as Teacher, the respondent has been turned out of the matrimonial home. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the petition seeking divorce.