JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the appellant-wife against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2018 passed by the learned Family Court in HMA No. 1036/2014, whereby the petition seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent has been allowed.

2. The respondent-husband had initially filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai however, subsequent to appellant-wife moving transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the trial of the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts and thus, the matter was listed before the Family Court, Saket, New Delhi.

3. The marriage was solemnized on 15.04.1973 in New Delhi and registered in Mumbai. Both parties are Hindus and American citizens, holding 'Overseas Citizen of India' status. Two children were born out of this wedlock. After about 41 years of marriage, the respondent-husband sought divorce from the appellant.

4. According to appellant, the respondent in his petition filed before the learned Family Court, averred that at the time of marriage between the parties, he was running Kwality Restaurant at Nagpur. He falsely averred that during the initial months of their marriage, there were marital discords between the parties and the appellant never liked to live in a small town like Nagpur and haunted the respondent that she was in the habit of living in big cities like Delhi and London where her mother had a luxurious apartment. The respondent alleged that the appellant often neglected her household responsibilities as well as that of the wife; and one day she packed her bags and left for London.

5. The respondent alleged that he got a job at Gaylord Restaurant in London and his job required him to stay late due to his official obligations. Therefore, he requested his employer to transfer him to Chicago, USA. While he was in Chicago in the year 1974, the appellant informed him that she was pregnant and wanted to accompany him so that the child could be born in America. During the delivery of the appellant, her mother came to Chicago while the parties were living in one BHK apartment and her mother made their lives miserable. The appellant left the respondent and stayed with her mother in London.

6. In the year 1976 when the respondent changed his company and got promoted to the post of General Manager and also took a 2 BHK apartment on rent, the appellant alongwith her daughter came back to join his company. However, again she showed discomfort and went back to her mother to live a luxurious life. The respondent alleged that he was extremely hurt and upset since despite his best efforts, he was not able to provide good lifestyle to his wife, which she expected. However, when the appellant returned with her mother, she was already pregnant and gave birth to a baby boy on 23.02.1977.

7. The respondent claims to have obtained green card and turned owner of Garland Restaurant at San Franciso in the year 1980 and rented a 3 BHK. However, the appellant alongwith her mother and child of the parties came back upon which the respondent was really happy. However, again the appellant started complaining and dominating the respondent and made his life miserable. Therefore, he wanted to take divorce from his wife. However, for the sake of his children, he continued in the relationship even though his wife accused him of drinking and gambling and turned suspicious of seeing other women for no reason whatsoever.

8. In the year 1984, the respondent claims to have received an opportunity to open a restaurant in Denver Colorado, USA; and the appellant showed her willingness to join him in his company even though she had no experience. She caused lot of problems with the staff and unfortunately, the restaurant had to be shut down.

9. Again on the pretext of working in an oil venture, the appellant left the respondent's company,