MANOHAR LAL Vs. DARSHANA DEVI
LAWS(P&H)-1986-4-102
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on April 11,1986

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J. V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This is husband's appeal whose petition for dissolution of marriage, under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide order dated 12th Dec., 1984.
(2.) The marriage between the parties was solemnised in Oct., 1970. They lived together as husband and wife only till 1972 when the marriage of the younger brother of the husband was solemnised in June, 1972. It was alleged in the petition on behalf of the husband that he was successful in bringing back the wife to attend the marriage of his brother but after about 15 days of the marriage, father of the wife-respondent took her away, in his absence. According to the husband, the wife had with- drawn from his society without any just and sufficient cause. It was further pleaded that he and his relatives visited the wife's place several times to bring her back but she and her father refused to send her along with them for reasons best known to teem. Later on, she started maltreating him as she began levelling false charges that he had contracted a second marriage in the year 1980 with one Shmt. Urmila Devi, whereas, he did not know any such lady. By the said allegations, the wife had lowered the image and status of the husband in the eyes of friends and relatives. Under the circumstances, the withdrawal of the wife from the society of the husband for such a long time amounted to cruelty, and the wife had withdrawn from his society for such a long time without sufficient cause, it was pleaded. Hence, decree for dissolution of marriage by way of divorce was prayed for.
(3.) The petition was filed on 19th Jan., 1984. It was resisted on the ground that the husband always maltreated the wife and never gave any respect or treated her as his legally-wedded wife. She was turned out of home after beating. Moreover, the husband had also contracted a second marriage with one Shmt. Urmilla Devi and she filed a complaint under section 494, Indian Penal Code , against the husband and others. Therefore, it was pleaded that the husband could not take benefit of his own fault and misdeeds. It was alleged that the wife had not made false allegations against the husband, on the other hand, the husband had contracted a second marriage with Shmt. Urmilla Devi, and, so, caused her harassment.;


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