PRADEEP KUMAR MAURYA S/O MOHAN LAL JI MAURYA, BY CASTE RAIGAR, R/O 54, ANGAD NAGAR, BHURASIDDH JAIPUR ROAD, KALA KUA, ALWAR (RAJ.) AT PRESENT 70, MANCHHAMAN GANESH NAGAR, UJJAIN (M.P.) Vs. SMT. POOJA MAURYA W/O PRADEEP KUMAR MAURYA, D/O HEMRAJ JI KANWADIYA, AGE 32 YEARS, R/O 3209, GHATGATE, RAIGARO KI KOTHI, NEAR GANGA MANDIR, JAIPUR (RAJ.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises from order dated 18/01/2014 passed by the Family Judge No.1, Jaipur in Case No.28 of 2013 dismissing the application for divorce filed by the Appellant on grounds of cruelty under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Family Judge erred in holding that any event prior to the year 2005 was not relevant to decide the issue of cruelty. Merely because there may have been a compromise subsequently and the parties lived as man and wife from 2005 till 2011 it will not wash off the earlier cruel conduct of the Respondent. There was a consistency and perpetuation of cruel behaviour by the Respondent prior to 2005 and continuation even thereafter. She would invariably leave the matrimonial house without information causing mental agony to the Appellant which naturally affected safe discharge of duties by him as a driver in the Railways. His peace of mind was disturbed and anything serious could have happened. The fact that no specific date may have been mentioned in support of the averment for cruelty was not relevant as it was a course of conduct by the Respondent affecting mental equilibrium and peace of the appellant. He had entered into the compromise with the Respondent in the hope that she would change her ways. Unfortunately she did not do so and continued to leave the matrimonial house at will. The institution of a criminal case by her under Sec. 498A and other provisions of the Penal Code leading to the Appellant having to seek bail were also instances of cruelty. The Respondent had contended before the Family Judge that the Appellant was cruel in behaviour towards her chiding her for inability to bear a child and assault her in a drunken condition. It is incomprehensible why she wants to return to the cruel behaviour of the Appellant by contending that she was desirous to return to the matrimonial home. This demonstrates the falsity of her allegations. It is denied that the Appellant ever mentioned that he wanted to remarry because of her inability to conceive further or that he had suggested marriage to her younger sister for that reason.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the parties were living together from 2005 to 2011 after compromise but his behaviour towards her did not change. The allegations under Sec. 498A Penal Code lost much of its relevance after the subsequent compromise. The Respondent has a 13 years old daughter born from the marriage to look after. She is therefore keen and desirous for revival of matrimonial harmony.