Hon'ble SARRAF, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.12.1999 passed by Judge, Family Court No.2, Jaipur whereby the application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respondent has been allowed and the marriage solemnized between the respondent and the appellant has been dissolved by passing a decree of divorce.

2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the application filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act on 1.11.1996 are that his marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 7.5.1985. Two sons were born, namely, Saptsheel and Anant on 19.11.88 and 14.11.89 respectively from the wedlock of the parties. The appellant was not happy with the marriage and from the beginning the appellant was behaving in a manner derogatory to the respondent and his family members. Inspite of the best efforts made by the respondent behaviour of the appellant did not change. The respondent complained of the behaviour of the appellant to her mother but the mother blamed the respondent and encouraged the appellant and began interfering in the affairs of the family of the respondent. The appellant made allegations against the respondent of illicit relations with his Bhabhi Saroj, her daughter Aasha and another Bhabhi Kalpana. The respondent lodged written complaint against the appellant on 16.7.1996 at the Gandhi Nagar Police Station whereupon Sub Divisional Magistrate (East) bound down the appellant for keeping peace. The mother of the appellant lodged a false report with S.P. Jaipur Rural on 20.8.96 and in this case the respondent was released on anticipatory bail by the High Court. The appellant refused to live with the respondent inspite of letters written by the latter. The appellant thus treated the respondent with cruelty. The appellant was not having sexual relations with the respondent for the last two years and the appellant thus deserted the respondent.

3. The appellant in the reply filed by her denied the averments made in the application.

4. Learned Family Court after examining the application and the reply framed following issues :-

^^1- vk;k izkFkhZ o mlds ifjokj ds yksxksa ds lkFk vizkfFkZ;k us izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds ifjizs; esa izkFkhZ o mlds ifjokj ds yksxksa dks rax] ijs'kku o izrkfM+r djds rFkk izkFkhZ ij mldh nksuksa HkkfHk;ksa ,oa mudh yM+dh ds lkFk voS/k lEcU/kksa ds >wBs vkjksi yxkdj Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k gSA

2- vk;k izkFkhZ ,oa vizkfFkZ;k ds e/; nks o"kZ ls vf/kd le; ls vizkfFkZ;k }kjk izkFkhZ ds lkFk lgokl ;k lEHkksx ugha fd;s tkus ds dkj.k vizkfFkZ;k us izkFkhZ dks tkucw>dj fcuk fdlh mfpr dkj.k ds ifjR;kx dj fn;k gS ,oa mldk vfHkR;tu dj fn;k gSA

3- vuqrks"kA**

5. The respondent examined himself and six other witnesses and exhibited 46 documents while the appellant examined 10 witnesses including herself and exhibited 58 documents.

6. Learned Family Court after analying the pleadings and the entire evidence on record decided issue no.2 regarding desertion in favour of the appellant and against the respondent but decided issue no.1 regarding cruelty in favour of the respondent and dissolved the marriage of the parties by passing a decree of divorce. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent personally.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously argued that far from treating the respondent with cruelty the appellant in fact suffered cruelty at the hands of the respondent and, therefore, to grant divorce to the respondent on ground of cruelty will be doing injustice to the appellant. He has further argued that in any case the cruelty has been forgiven by the respondent by living with the appellant subsequent to the alleged acts of cruelty and as such the decree of divorce cannot be granted on the ground of cruelty. He has also argued that irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is not a ground for granting divorce under Section 13 of the Act an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document