HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
S.Muralidhar, J. -
(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.12.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant's petition HMA No. 303 of 2003 for dissolution of his marriage with Respondent No.1 under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1959 ('Act') inter alia on the ground of cruelty. There are two respondents in the appeal. Since the office report indicated that both respondents were avoiding service the appellant was permitted to serve them by publication. The respondents 1 and 2 were served through publication as recorded in the orders dated 20.7.2006 and 28.8.2006. Despite service, neither respondent appeared in these proceedings and were accordingly set ex parte by this Court by the Order dated 27.9.2006. The appellant was directed to file a synopsis and the arguments of the appellant were heard finally on 14.2.2007. Background facts
(2.) Both the appellant and Respondent No.1 were studying in Rohtak Medical College in 1984. While the Respondent No.1 was studying in the MBBS course, the appellant was pursuing the degree course in Bachelor of Dental Surgery. The parties became acquainted and intimate and got married on 19.12.1988 at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Rohtak against the wishes of their respective parents. A daughter was born on 28.12.1989. The appellant, after graduation, shifted to Jaipur in 1992 and commenced private practice. In the same year, the Respondent No.1 left for Bombay to pursue a Diploma Course in Gynaecology ('DGO'). With the help of the appellant's uncle, the Respondent No.1 managed to secure a placement in the Department of Neuro Surgery at the Bombay Hospital where Respondent No.2 was the head of the department.
(3.) The appellant states that his relationship with Respondent No. 1 was intimate and affectionate during the early years of marriage. According to the appellant when he used to visit Bombay he and the Respondent No.1 would live in his uncle's house- since he was not permitted to live with Respondent No.1 in her hostel. The appellant states that the Respondent No. 1 avoided sexual relationship with him on some pretext or the other. She completed her DGO course in 1995 and returned to Jaipur on 13.11.1995 since the daughter was missing the company of her mother.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.