The main legal point established in the judgment is that the ground of desertion was not available to the appellant as the parties resided together till the filing of the petition, and the alleged cruelty was not proved.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Kumar Verma, J. - CM-21601-CII of 2012

Through this application under Section 151 CPC prayer has been made for condonation of delay of 602 days in refiling the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed.

Delay of 602 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

CM-21600-CII of 2012

Through this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC prayer has been made for condonation of delay of 321 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed.

Delay of 321 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

FAO-4912 of 2012

1. Appellant-husband has come up in this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.05.2010 passed by the District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani, whereby petition filed by him under Section 13 (1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the HMA') for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of the appellant with respondent was solemnised on 01.07.1998 at village Tikan Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated and two children, namely, Ashish Malik and Annu Malik were born. As per appellant-husband the marriage was a simple affair and neither any demand of dowry was made nor any articles were given. During the stay of the parties together, the conduct of the respondent-wife was far from that of a normal Hindu wife as she treated the appellant and his family members with mental as well as physical cruelty. After the marriage, respondent joined the matrimonial house with the appellant at Chandigarh where he was employed. They lived there and cohabited. It has been averred by the appellant-husband that respondent- wife is a short tempered, irresponsible, non-cooperative in nature and is having a stubborn attitude. However, appellant always tried to accommodate the respondent with a fond hope that good sense would prevail upon her. It has also been alleged that respondent has been a negligent mother as she would leave the children alone to suffer injuries. She would not cook food and children had to go without meals a number of times. Appellant and his mother are looking after the children. It has further been alleged that on 13.01.2004 respondent came back along with her uncle Dhoop Singh, her brother Ranbir but after few days demanded that mother of the appellant should not live at Chandigarh and should go back to her village. On 17.02.2004, respondent picked up quarrel with the mother of the appellant and caused injuries to her. On the request of the appellant-husband, on 10.02.2004 father and uncle of the respondent-wife came to Chandigarh and took away respondent along with minor Ashish to their village on 19.02.2004. On 30.05.2004, respondent came back to Chandigarh and insisted that both the children should study in village. She categorically stated that the appellant-husband is dead for her and she is a widow and she does not need anybody's help and demanded the keys of house belonging to the father of the appellant in his native village so that she can stay there along with children. She even threatened to commit suicide alongwith children in case her demand is not met. For the safety of the children, appellant and his family members agreed for this unreasonable condition put forward by the respondent. Even then respondent-wife stated that appellant-husband should seek divorce from her as she is not interested in living with the him. Despite shifting to village Ajitpur and even after all the facilities of livelihood being provided by the appellant and his family members, respondent started quarrelling with uncle of the appellant, namely, Rajbir Singh and demanded that all the land of the family should be handed over to her only and she should get the control over income of the family land. When this condition was not met by the uncle of the appellant, respondent cal