GIRRAJ PRASAD SHARMA Vs. TARA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This will dispose of an appeal (No. 1146/1996) filed by the husband Girraj Prasad Sharma @ Vinod Sharma against the judgment and decree dated 16.10.1996 of the then Judge Family Court, Kota whereby he dismissed his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of his marriage with his wife Tara Mishra by a decree of divorce and also dispose of another Appeal No. 438/ 97 filed by the wife Tara Mishra against the same decision inasmuch as the Judge Family Court has held under issue No. 1 that she had deserted the husband though this desertion did not extend continuously to the statutory period of two years or more immediately preceding the filing of this petition.

(2.) It was the common case of parties that they were wedded on 26.6.1989 by Hindu rites and thereafter cohabited for a period before the marriage ran into rough weather and there was a parting of the ways between the spouses. The husband filed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce against the wife on 17.1.1995 on the twin grounds of desertion and cruelty. His case in his petition, in sum and substance, was that the wife a class II employee being a teacher used to consider him beneath her status because he a Lower Division Clerk was a class III employee and taunt him on that score. When her transfer to a place (Suket) in Kota District was 'managed' by his father the wife disliked the idea of cohabiting with him at Kota - his place of posting. Matters between them did not improve even when he gave in to her demand and set up a separate house from the rest of his family. Eventually she left the matrimonial home on 28.5.1992 and had deserted him continuously since then. Also she was guilty of mental as well as physical cruelty towards him for during the period of their cohabitation she went to the extent of thrashing him.

(3.) The wife has contested this petition by refuting each and every accusation levelled against her by her husband in his petition and maintained that her husband and her in-laws were overcome by greed and hankered for her salary which they wanted to put to their own use. She maintained that she was neglected by her husband and her in-laws who did not so much as provide her with medical aid at the times of her indisposition.