Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The appellant is challenging the judgment dated 13.2.98 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellants application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred to as `the Act, for short). Throughout this judgment the appellant shall be referred as the husband and the respondent as the wife for the sake of clarity.

(2). In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the husband and wife were married according to Hindu rites on 30.10.90 at Jaipur. According to the husband for the first few days when the wife stayed at her matrimonial home, she behaved well with his family. However, upon her return from her parental house, after a few days of the marriage, her behaviour suddenly changed. He further claimed that he is the only son in the family. He has two small sisters and old father to look after. Even prior to her marriage, he had informed the wifes family that since there is no one to look after his aged father, his wife would have to look after him. But, immediately upon her return from her parental place, the wife started abusing her father-in-law by calling him names and by neglecting his welfare. She also pressurised the husband in abandoning his father and in shifting to another house. Since the husband refused to succumb to her pressure, her behaviour became more and more cruel towards him and towards his family members. According to him on 30.3.91, without any rhyme or reason and in his absence and in the absence of his father, the wife packed up her bags, collected her jewellary and left the matrimonial home. Since that date, she has refused to come back to the matrimonial home. Since that date, she has refused to come back to the matrimonial home. On 5.12.91, she gave birth to a son, but the husband was never informed either by the wife or by his in-laws. When he came to know about the birth of son, he went to see his wife at the hospital, but he found her missing. Thereafter, he went to his in-laws place. However, they refused to let him come inside the house. Hence, he could neither see his newly born child, nor meet his wife. Furthermore, according to him despite sending many persons to reconcile between him and his wife, his wife consistently refused to come back to him. Therefore, he eventually filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

(3). On the other hand, the wife filed her written statement wherein she narrated a totally different set of facts. According to her on the very first night the husband came deadly drunk into the room and abused her for bringing insufficient dowry. She further claimed that she was shocked to learn that her husband was earlier married to a woman known as Shanta and had a son from the said marriage. According to her, this fact was not even revealed by the husband in the matrimonial advertisement given by him on 8.4.90 in the daily newspaper "Rajasthan Patrika". When she inquired about his first marriage she realised that the husband had sought divorce on the exact same grounds as are pleaded by him in the present case. She further claimed that once when the husband had lost Rs. 3,000/- in gambling, he forced her to go to her parental place and to bring Rs.3,000/- for him. Moreover, when her father retired from the services and had received Rs. 1,20,934/-, then subsequently the husband pressurised her to convince her father to part with Rs. 50,000/- for him. Whenever, she would refuse to her talk to her father on this topic, the husband would assault her. She further claimed that despite the fact that she was a woman from a Jain community, her husband would force her to cook meat and to drink with him. Since she believed in non-violence according to her religious tenance, she could never convince herself to eat non-vegetarian food and to drink. Lastly, according to her on 30.3.91, her husband mercilessly bashed her up and threw her o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document