CHHOTE LAL SAINI Vs. JAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal filed under Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955") lays challenge to the judgment and decree dtd. 31/3/2009 passed by the District Court, Dausa, whereby the Divorce Petition No.34/2005, filed by respondent - wife, seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties, was allowed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent -wife entered into marriage with appellant-husband on 17/2/2001 and thereafter, when her marriage was not consummated, she filed a divorce petition on 3/8/2005 under Sec. 13 of the Act of 1955, alleging therein that on the third day of marriage, the appellant cast aspersions on her character; addressed her an adulteress and refused to accept her as his wife. It was further alleged that no marital and physical relations were ever established between the appellant and the respondent. It was stated that on the fifth day of marriage, the brother of respondent, as per prevalent customs and rituals, took her to her parental home where she disclosed the entire incidents to her family members. It was further stated that the family members of the respondent made efforts to persuade the appellant to live with the respondent and treat her with dignity; however such efforts remained unsuccessful as the appellant refused to do so and since then, she has been residing at her parental home. On the ground of cruelty and desertion, the respondent sought dissolution of marriage.

(3.) The appellant filed reply to the divorce petition in which he denied all the allegations. He refuted the allegation of casting aspersion on the character of respondent. It was also stated in the reply that he was willing to accept her as his wife whereas the respondent did not wish to live in the joint family and insisted on living separately, and that she was acting under the influence of her parents. The allegation of desertion was also denied, stating that the respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, taking her jewellery with her. It was also stated that two sisters of the respondent were married to two brothers of the appellant and were living happily in their families.