Prakash Krishna - (1.) THIS is yet another unfortunate appeal by husband against judgment and decree dated 25.4.2001, passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in Petition No. 568 of 1995 (Madras) whereby the petition for divorce filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.
(2.) THE parties were married on 5th of April, 1990. Both of them belong to families of good status. THE husband Brajesh Kumar at the time of marriage was employed as Probationer (I.R.E.S.) in Railways. The wife, on the other hand is M.A. (Zoology). The father of husband at the time of marriage was working as Deputy Collector and father of the wife was Superintendent Engineer in Irrigation Department. Petition for divorce was filed at Madras (Chennai) initially which was transferred to Ghaziabad by the order of the Apex Court passed in T.A. (C) No. 457 of 1995, Smt. Anjali v. Brajesh Kumar.
(3.) THE aforesaid petition for divorce was filed by the husband on the pleas as available to a party on the ground of cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended in the State of U. P. It was pleaded in the divorce petition that after the marriage the husband was posted at various places in southern part of India such as, at Salem (Tamil Nadu), Podanur, Mangalroe, Palghat and Madras. From the very beginning the respondent suffered from severe complexes as she was not well versed in any language except Hindi. She used to neglect to attend household jobs on the pretext that in her parental house servants used to do these jobs. She neglected the petitioner and declined to attend his needs. She also made the petitioner an accused of having adulterous association with a lady Gynecologist to whom she was taken by the petitioner in connection with her treatment as she was pregnant and ultimately, delivered a female child on 27th August, 1991 namely Km. Disha. There was no improvement in the behaviour of respondent even after the birth of Km. Disha. She used to raise hue and cry and create scenes in the house with the result that the petitioner's parents never came to reside with him at various places of his postings from time to time. Lastly, in the month of April, 1994 when the petitioner informed that his parents are coming to reside with him, the respondent pressurized the petitioner to intimate them not to come. However, petitioner's parents came to his house on 19th April, 1994 and surprisingly, on the same date, at Madras, the place of his posting, the respondent called his brother from Delhi who came without any prior intimation. She refused to cook the food for her in-laws while well attended her brother. He had to arrange for their food from hotels.;