SMT. RAJ KUMARI @ CHANDRAKALA W/O SHRI NANDLAL D/O SHRI BADRI SINGH, BY CASTE MALI KACHHAWAHA, RESIDENT OF SARDARSHAHAR AT PRESENT BIKANER Vs. NANDLAL SON OF LATE SHRI DALCHAND JI, BY CASTE MALI, SANGODIYA, RESIDENT OF SARDARSHAHAR CHURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.10.1995 passed by the District Judge, Churu, whereby the petition filed by the respondent under Sec. 13 of the Act has been accepted and marriage between the parties has been dissolved.

(2.) The dispute between the parties has a checkered history. The petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by the respondent-husband under Sections 12 and 13 of the Act, inter-alia, with the averments that the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 20.11.1989 at Bikaner at the residence of Dr. Durga Gehlot; a daughter was borne out of the wedlock on 5.9.1990. It was alleged that the family members of the wife at the time of marriage wrongly indicated her name as Rajkumari and her age at 21 years, in fact, her real name was Chandrakala and her age as per the school certificate was much more and she was widow of Dr. Anil Kumar Gehlot, whereas it was informed that she was unmarried. It was alleged that marriage was solemnized by committing fraud, the said fact came to the notice of the husband during the posting at Bikaner and FIR No. 197 dated 25.10.1993 was lodged, which is being investigated. It was alleged that the wife was of cantankerous nature and behaved cruelly with the husband and family members. It was alleged that while behaving in the offending manner, the wife continued to move between her matrimonial home and parental home and on 7.12.1991, uncle (mama) of the wife, without permission took her with him. Whereafter, she did not turn up till 25.10.1993 and continued to refuse to live with the husband. Before 25.10.1993, several efforts were made for bringing her back, however, the parents and aunty of the wife intimated that if the husband wants to come and live with her, he can come and live, the wife was not prepared to go and live with him. It was also alleged that despite repeated efforts made between 7.12.1991 to 25.10.1993, the wife did not return back and has deserted the husband. Based on the said allegation of cruelty and desertion, the petition was filed.

(3.) The appellant herein was served with the notice of the petition, she appeared through counsel before the trial court, however, on 26.8.1995, her counsel pleaded no instructions and therefore, ex-parte proceedings were initiated.