SHILPA Vs. KULDEEP SINGH GEHLOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2013 passed by the learned Family Court No. 2, Jodhpur (herein after 'the Court') in CO No. 63/2012 whereby the learned Court has granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 08th December 2001 at Jodhpur according to Hindu rituals and rites. The respondent contends that behaviour of the appellant from the beginning towards the respondent and his family members was cruel. She denied to perform her conjugal duties and also refused to consummate the marriage. The respondent went to Ethopia in November 2002 and the appellant went to reside with him in May 2003. The respondent contends that the appellant continued being cruel and abusive towards him. Upon their return to India on 8.7.2004, the appellant did not accompany the respondent to her matrimonial home but went to her parent's house. She at her own free will would visit her matrimonial home occasionally and last she visited on 20.8.2004. On that day a quarrel took place between the two in which the appellant slapped the respondent in the heat of the moment. The appellant left her matrimonial home and went to her parent's house, and did not return back.

(2.) In the aforementioned circumstances, the respondent alleged cruelty and desertion for a continuous period of two years without reasonable cause on the part of the appellant, from 20.8.2004 to the date of filing of the suit, entitling him to a decree of divorce.

(3.) In reply, the appellant denied all the allegations of cruelty and desertion leveled against her and contended that the respondent had made demands of dowry. As for desertion, she contended that when she visited her matrimonial home in December 2004, she came to know that the respondent had left to Ethopia in November 2004. She contended that she was never informed by him that he is leaving for Ethopia. She alleged that when the respondent returned to India in March 2006, she visited her matrimonial home against as soon as she learnt about respondent's return. She contended that she never intended to leave her matrimonial home but was driven out of the house by the respondent who had continually harassed her.