The main legal point established in the judgment is the irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The instant appeal has been filed by the husband-Virender Jain against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge, Sonepat vide which the petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) was dismissed.

2. Few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as pleaded in the petition filed by the appellant-husband before the court below may be noticed.

3. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 04.11.2003 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Gohana. One son was born out of the said wedlock on 05.08.2004, who is under the care and custody of the appellant-husband. The appellant-husband pleaded that the behaviour of the respondent-wife was unbecoming towards him right from the beginning of their marriage, which caused a great deal of distress to him and his family. Soon after the marriage, the appellant-husband was told by the respondent-wife that the marriage had been solemnized against her wishes as she did not like him. She would often threaten the appellant-husband that if he even tried to touch her, she would end her life. However, the appellant-husband tolerated all this in the hope that her behaviour would improve but it only worsened with the passage of time. Several panchayats were convened wherein an assurance was given by the father of the respondent–wife that she would not misbehave in future. On an assurance being given, the appellant-husband took the respondent-wife back to the matrimonial home on 24.05.2004 but to his shock, there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent-wife as she continued with her rude behaviour towards one and all. Finally, on 08.07.2004, the respondent-wife compelled the appellant-husband to send her back to her parental home. While going away, she took along all her jewellery and valuables. Ever since then she had been residing at her parental home at Rohtak. On 05.08.2004, she gave birth to their son while staying at her parental home. The appellant-husband hoped that the birth of their son would help in bringing some change in the behaviour of the respondent-wife but the respondent-wife made no bones that she had delivered the child against her wishes. The appellant-husband was asked to take the child away as she did not want to maintain any relations with him. The appellant-husband submitted that on 25.09.2005 a compromise was arrived at between the parties wherein the respondent-wife admitted to her fault and agreed to get a divorce from the appellant-husband. Not only this, the respondent-wife received a lump sum amount from the appellant-husband and gave the custody of the son to the appellant-husband. In the above factual background, the appellant-husband pleaded that it was impossible for the parties to live together as the respondent-wife had treated him with utmost cruelty, which could not be condoned.

4. Per contra, the respondent-wife in her written statement filed before the court below, refuted and categorically denied the allegations of the appellant-husband. She submitted that in fact it was the appellant-husband and his family, who had been maltreating her from the very beginning of the marriage. They would repeatedly taunt her for bringing inadequate dowry which had resulted in a loss of face for them in the society. She would be rebuked and taunted by her mother-in-law that being motherless she even did not know the basic house-hold chores. She submitted that she had always tried to adjust in the matrimonial home and had never ever told the appellant-husband that the marriage had been solemnized against her wishes. She alleged that in fact it was the appellant-husband, who just after a week of their marriage, told her that he did not like her and had been compelled to keep her as his wife. She would often be physically assaulted by her mother-in-law. She categorically denied that she had ever threatened the appellant-husband to commit suicide if he ev