JYOTI Vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14. 12. 199s in Hindu Marriage Case No. 281/92 by the learned 9th Additional District Judge, Indore, who Was pleased to decree the suit for divorce.

(2.) THE case in shorting is that the parties had married on 31st May, 1987; that the appellant was residing with the respondent and out of that wed-lock they have a son born on 26. 5. 1989. The father of the respondent died on 10. 5. 1992. It is an admitted position that the parties have not resided together since 2. 6. 1990. The case of the respondent is that the appellant had gone to her parents three months before the birth of the child, that she had returned to the house of the respondent after about two months of the birth of the child, but she was quarrelling with the respondent; that on 2. 6. 1990 she went to her parents' house after quarrelling with the respondent. The respondent tried to bring her back on several occasions but she did not return, inspite of the information about the death of the father of the respondent, the appellant did not go to pay last respects to the deceased father of the respondent. It is stated that on 29. 6. 1992 a notice was issued by the respondent to the appellant through a lawyer, which was replied but according to the respondent the reply was not correct. It is stated that the appellant has alleged that the respondent is greedy of dowry. On these grounds the suit for divorce was filed on two classified grounds-cruelty and dessertion.

(3.) THE reply of the appellant was that she has never behaved improperly with the respondent. She said that she never insisted on the respondent to come to reside at Indore. She admitted that after the birth of the child, she had gone to the matrimonial house. She had gone alongwith customary clothes, ornaments, etc. It is stated that she did not come to Indore on her own but she was forced out of her matrimonial house as the respondent and his family members made it impossible for her to live in the matrimonial house. It is stated that the father of the respondent had called the father of the appellant at Sanwer and he had asked that the father of the appellant should take away the appellant. It was stated that if the mood of the respondent's mother becomes normal she would be called. It is stated that,:. thereafter the appellant went to the house of the respondent but she was not accepted. It is stated that the family members of the respondent wanted dowry and in the greed of dowry they want to marry him again after taking divorce from the appellant. It is stated that at the time of death of the father of the respondent the appellant and her father and other relatives had gone to pay last respects to the deceased but they were insulted out.