Point of Law: under Section 13 of Act 1955 there is no ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage for granting decree of divorce. Court said that it cannot add such a ground to Section 13, as that would amount to amendment of Act, which is the function of legislature.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Misra, J.

1. Present First Appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1984) has been filed by Appellant i.e. wife challenging judgement dated 13.03.2015 and decree dated 27.03.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad in Suit No. 367 of 2005 (Sri Rajendra Pal Singh Vs. Smt. Shashi Bala) filed by Plaintiff i.e. husband under Section 13 (I) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1955) whereby aforesaid Suit has been decreed resulting in annulment of marriage of parties held on 04.12.1996.

2. We have heard Mr. Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Defendant-Appellant (hereinafter referred to as Appellant) and Mr. Tarun Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel representing Plaintiff-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff).

3. Plaintiff filed Original Suit No.237 of 2004 (Sri Rajendra Pal Singh Vs. Smt. Shashi Bala) under Section 13 (1) of Act 1955 for a decree of divorce on the ground of 'cruelty' committed by Appellant. According to plaint allegations, marriage of Plaintiff was solemnized with Appellant on 04.12.1996 at Aligarh in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. From aforesaid wedlock two children namely Krishan Kant and Jatin Pal were born. Appellant was working as a teacher in Government Girls Inter College, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad but on her request transferred to Moradabad. Plaintiff is working in Indian Navy and posted at Sena Bhawan, New Delhi. Accordingly, Plaintiff is getting handsome salary. As such, Plaintiff can maintain his family including Appellant and himself. Subsequently, relationship between Plaintiff and Appellant became strained. According to Plaintiff, it is Appellant, who is responsible for such sorry state of affairs; she is a short tempered lady with bad character; her behaviour towards Plaintiff as well as other relatives of Plaintiff was never cordial; she is guilty of telling lies and further uncareful to maintain good relations; she was completely under pressure of her parents; not willing to keep good and cordial relations with Plaintiff; Parents of Appellant are greedy and want to extort money earned by Plaintiff as well as Appellant; she used to leave residence of Plaintiff without informing him; used to absent herself from School; went to some unknown place without informing Plaintiff; when Plaintiff attempted to enquire about such conduct, she became furious and did not categorically reply to the query made by Plaintiff. In such circumstances, according to Plaintiff, minor children were facing difficulty and further their future was also said to be in dark. Appellant left house of Plaintiff in 1999. However, due to intervention of some respectable persons a compromise was arrived at between parties on 22.04.1999. She committed breach of aforesaid compromise, which was unbecoming of an obedient wife. Appellant ultimately abandoned house of Plaintiff on 28.02.2004. Since then Appellant is not residing with Plaintiff. On the aforesaid factual premise, it was prayed that suit filed for divorce be decreed.

4. Suit was contested by Appellant. She accordingly filed a written statement dated 06.07.2005 denying plaint allegations. Additional pleas were also raised by Appellant. Factum regarding marriage and birth of two children from wedlock of parties was admitted. She also admitted of serving as Lecturer at Government Girls Inter College, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad but later on transferred to Cantt. Moradabad. It was further admitted that Plaintiff is working in Indian Navy and posted at New Delhi. However, rest of the averments made in plaint were denied. According to Appellant wild allegations have been made by Plaintiff against Appellant without there being any cogent reason behind the same; charges levelled against her character have caused physical and mental cruelty upon her; behavior of with her was rude and abusive; it was Plaintiff, who has tortured physically an