HARI KUMAR LEKHI Vs. SUMAN LATA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-7-30
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on July 21,1983

HARI KUMAR LEKHI Appellant
VERSUS
SUMAN LATA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.L.Jain - (1.)The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 181-1974. A male child was born to them on 9-10-1974. It is in evidence that the child is suffering from some sickness. On 18-10-1975, the wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act). The husband also filed a similar petition on 19-11-1975. The wife's petition was dismissed but that of the husband was decreed on 21-9-1976. The wife came in appeal to the High Court where reconciliation took place on 17-5-1977. The husband carried the wife with him and two days were given to them to report how they were pulling on. On 19-5-1977 the counsel for the parties reported that the compromise has come into effect and there was resumption of cohabitation. However, the wife left the house of the husband on 9 6-1977 The husband then filed a petition for divorce under Sec. 13 of the Act on the ground of desertion on 28-1-1981. The peti- tion was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 30 8-1982. Hence, this appeal.
(2.)I have heard the parties and perused the record. I attempted reconciliation but could not succeed because of the hard posture adopted by the husband. The case of the husband is that the wife left the matrimonial home on 9-6-1977 without his consent. Some nine-ten persons including her parents, brothers and sister came to his house in his absence, abused his mother and took away the wife. The wife's case is that she was beaten and turned out from the house. Her further case is that the husband is interested in some other girl, Rita (RW 2) and that is why he has turned her out and that she has always been ready to go and live with her husband alongwith her son in spite of his affair with Rita and in spite of the beati ngs given to her. It is the husband who does not want to keep her. She even went to the matrimonial home on 9-8-1981 when the grand father of the husband died. Therefore, the short question that fl for determination in this case is which story to believe.
(3.)The husband Harish (Public Witness 1) deposed that the wife lived at his house up to 9-6-1977 when she left it in his absence. Her parents and their men abused his mother and his younger sister who alone were there present, and carried the wife. Next day, be sent his friend Prem Prakash (Public Witness 2) to her father's house but they refused to send her. Ram Parkash (Public Witness 3) is the father of the husband He deposed that he was not in town on 9-6-1977. He personally did not know what transpired on that day. His wife and the wife of his younger son were present. He did not know if the husband and his mother had turned the wife out. Husband's mother, Smt. Usha (Public Witness 4) deposed that the respondent left her house about 4 years back. She and the wife of her younger son were present at the house. She asked the respondent not to go in the absence of the husband. But the wife asked her who was she to stop her. She rebuked her. Thereafter the wife and her parents did not send her back. It is obvious that the story put forward by the husband that the wife was taken away by the parents by force is not supported by his father or by his mother.
;


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