RANI RAJ KAUR Vs. KULDIP SINGH
LAWS(DLH)-1983-12-35
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on December 14,1983

RANI RAJ KAUR Appellant
VERSUS
KULDIP SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DHANJISHAW V. FFORDE [REFERRED TO]
ATKINS V. ATKINS [REFERRED TO]
JAMIESON V. JAMIESON [REFERRED TO]
KASLEFSKY V. KASELFSKY [REFERRED TO]
THOMAS V. THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
THOMAS V.THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
GOLLINS V. GOLLINS,1963 2 AER 966 [REFERRED TO]
KING V. KING [REFERRED TO]
YEATMAN V. YEATMAN [REFERRED TO]
N G DASTANE VS. S DASTANE [REFERRED TO]
AMARJEET SINGH VS. BHAGWATI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
SADAN SINGH VS. RESHAM [REFERRED TO]
PARAS RAM VS. KAMLESH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BANWARILAL & ANOTHER VS. CHAND BEHARI & ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-9-172] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. - (1.)This is a wife's appeal from the decree of divorce passed by the Additional District Judge, Miss Usha Mehra, dated 7-8-1981.
(2.)The parties were married on 7-9-1975. The husband is a mechanic in the international Airport Authority. The wife is a working woman. He was about 38 and she 37. A male child was born to them on 23-4-77. A second child was born on 14-2-1979.
(3.)On 9-7-79 the respondent husband brought a petition against the wife for divorce on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (the Act). He alleged several acts of cruelty. The learned judge came to the conclusion that the husband had failed in proving the the acts of cruelty alleged by him against his wife. Ordinarily she should have dismissed the husband's petition for divorce. But she found one act of cruelty proved against the wife. This was in paragraph 18 in the written statement which reads as follows ;-
"The father of the petitioner is said to he living separate from his wife, the step-mother of the petitioner, for the last 20 years but the petitioner has all along been living with his step-mother who is of his equal age. There is much probability that he has developed some unholy intimacy with her and under her influence, he has been harassing the respondent to extract money from the respondent and even to kill her to grab her property including her house in D-34, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi where she is living."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.