IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce cannot be granted on the basis of vague pleadings.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Sumit and Preeti solemnized their marriage on February 25, 2012 as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. They were blessed with a girl child on February 23, 2013 who, is currently with Preeti.

2. Sumit filed a petition seeking dissolution of the marriage by grant of a decree of divorce pleading cruelty before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Rohini on January 04, 2014. Counsel for Preeti was negligent. She did not file a written statement. Sans her defence she had to rely upon the pleadings, the evidence led by Sumit and his cross-examination by her counsel.

3. Notwithstanding Preeti’s handicap, Sumit has suffered a setback. His claim has been denied. HMA No.6/14 filed by him has been dismissed.

4. Learned Judge Family Court has opined that the pleadings and the evidence is sans any particulars. Everything is vague. Thus no case is made out to annul the marriage by granting a decree for divorce on ground of cruelty.

5. At the outset we must note that Sumit’s examination-in-chief is by way of an affidavit and in the same the petition seeking annulment of the marriage has been parroted word by word. Thus, the pleadings and Sumit’s evidence is verbatim.

6. In para 3 of the petition, Sumit claims that the child born to the couple was not from him and his wife told him that one Vimal was the father of the child. Link averment is to be found in paragraph 22 to 24 of the petition wherein it is stated that Preeti had an affair with Vimal before marriage and she used to regularly visit Agra to maintain illicit relations with him. He pleads that initially Preeti denied her past but later on admitted said fact.

7. When, where and under what circumstances Preeti said that Vimal had fathered the child has not been pleaded nor disclosed in the affidavit. No dates of Preeti visiting Agra have been disclosed. Obviously Preeti could meet Vimal in Agra if she went to Agra. In this connection it needs to be highlighted that the couple were blessed with a girl child on February 23, 2013 and thus conception would be around May, 2012. There are no averments that around said period i.e. May, 2012, Preeti was in Agra. We note that in paragraph 19 of the petition Sumit pleads that since August, 2012 he had no conjugal relations with his wife. There is thus a deemed admission that till July, 2012 the two had a conjugal relationship. A reading of his petition shows an admission that he had access to his wife during the subsistence of the marriage and thus Preeti would be entitled to the benefit of presumption in her favour as per Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We shall be dealing with the aspect of cruelty pertaining to Preeti denying conjugal relationship to Sumit after August, 2012 as we deal with other grounds of cruelty alleged.

8. Therefore, qua the allegation of cruelty, in the form of adultery, we agree with the view taken by the learned Trial Judge that on account of vagueness in the pleading and insufficiency of the evidence in the form of when, where and under what circumstances Preeti said so, Sumit would not be entitled to a decree for divorce on said ground of cruelty.

9. Other averments in the pleadings attracting ground of cruelty are that Preeti told Sumit that she was compelled by her parents into the marriage with him. The next allegation is that Preeti refused to live in the joint family.

10. It is the further case of Sumit that (Quote) : ‘The respondent immediately after the marriage started creating problems and disturbances in the matrimonial house and used to pick up quarrels, vitiated the peaceful atmosphere and without any rhyme and reasons used to humiliate, harass and insult the old aged parents of the petitioner and ..... she became more aggressive and violent day by day’.

11. Further, in paras 8 to 11 of the petition, it is pleaded that from the beginning of the marriage, Preeti was harsh, cruel, abusive and using coarsest and insulting language. She used to humiliate Sumit in fron