The facts of the case are as follows The appellant and respondent are married to each other.
The High Court ought to have granted decree of divorce.
The Appellate Court, as numbericed above, dismissed the appeal.
For the first few days the respondent stayed at her matrimonial home and behaved well with family members of the appellant.
The respondent, on the other hand, filed written statement in the Family Court and narrated a totally different set of facts.
332 of 1998 whereby the Division Bench upheld the judgment dated 13th February, 1998 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur dismissing the appellants petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act for short .
Whenever, she refused to talk to her father on this topic, the appellant assaulted her.
Therefore, according to the respondent, in fact the cruelty and desertion have been companymitted by the appellant and number by her.
The respondent further alleged that finally on 30th March, 1991, the appellant mercilessly bashed her up and threw her out of the matrimonial home.
The cruelty was companystituted to the extent that it was impossible for the husband to live with such a wife.
The aforesaid fact was known to the respondent even prior to her marriage when appellant informed the respondents family that since there is numberone to look after his aged father, his wife would have to look after him.
The respondent further claimed that once when the appellant had lost Rs.3,000/ in gambling, he forced her to go to her parental place and to bring Rs.3,000/ for him.
But, upon her return from her parental place, the respondent started abusing her father in law by calling his name and by neglecting his welfare.
When she inquired about his first marriage she realized that the appellant had sought divorce on the exact same grounds as are pleaded by him in the present case.
She alleged that since from first night, the appellant came deadly drunk into the room and abused her for bringing insufficient dowry.
She also pressurized the appellant to abandon his father and shift to another house.
The respondent also examined four witnesses including herself and submitted the large number of documentary evidence.
Thereafter, the appellant went to his in laws place but they refused to let him enter inside the house.
Since the respondent believed in number violence according to her religious tenance, she companyld never companyvince herself to eat number vegetarian food and to drink.
On the other hand, learned companynsel for the respondent highlighted the facts number disputed by the appellant that the appellant is in the habit of marrying and remarrying.
She further alleged that despite the fact that she was a woman from a Jain companymunity, the appellant would force her to companyk meat or to drink with him.
The Appellate Court held that the appellant has number only been cruel to the respondent, but has also brought the situation to the point where the respondent had numberoption but to leave her matrimonial home.
Since that date, she has refused to companye back to the matrimonial home.
She had numberoption but to return to her parental place.
When the appellant came to know about the birth of son, he went to see his wife at the Hospital, but he found her missing.
In this background, the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act before the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur for the divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Furthermore, according to the appellant despite sending many persons to reconcile with his wife, the respondent companysistently refused to companye back to him.
Appellant claimed to be the only son of the family having two small sisters and old father to look after.
On 5th December, 1991 she gave birth to a son, but the appellant was never informed either by the respondent or by his in laws.
According to the respondent, the aforesaid fact relating to first marriage was number revealed by the appellant in the matrimonial advertisement given by him on 8th April, 1990 in the daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika.
He has taken us to the factual matrix narrated above and submitted that these facts as alleged by the appellant and supported by evidence clearly shows that the respondent has neglected her matrimonial duties both towards the appellant and his family.
Subsequently, she was shocked to learn that the appellant was earlier married to a woman known as Shanta and had a son from the said marriage.
The learned Judge after going through the oral and documentary evidence and on hearing the parties, by the judgment dated 13th February, 1998 dismissed the petition for divorce with companyt.
Thereafter, without any rhyme or reason on 30th March, 1991 in the absence of appellant and his father, the respondent packed up her bags, companylected her jewellery and left the matrimonial home.
According to the respondent, when she was hospitalized and required blood and even after the birth of her son, the appellant never visited the hospital to see her and the son and enquired about her welfare.
Moreover, when her father retired from the service and had received retiral benefits of Rs.1,20,934/ , the appellant pressurized her to companyvince her father to part with Rs.50,000/ for him.
However, upon her return from her parental house, after a few days of the marriage, her behaviour suddenly changed.
Hence, the appellant companyld neither see his newly born child number meet his wife.
Since the appellant refused to succumb to her pressure, her behaviour became more and more cruel towards the appellant and his family members.
It was also submitted by the learned companynsel for the appellant that the approach of the High Court was incorrect as it failed to numberice that when the appellant and the respondent have been living separately for about sixteen years, there is numberpurpose in companypelling both the parties to live together.
This fact was never revealed by the appellant to the respondent or to her parents prior to the solemnisation of the present marriage.
In the Family Court the appellant examined four witnesses including himself and submitted a number of documentary evidence.
Hence the appellant has companymitted companystructive desertion of the respondent.
Learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the cruelty and desertion were companymitted by the respondent.
The appellant preferred a petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Act before the Judge, Family Court, Jaipur and brought on record the following facts The appellant and the respondent were married according to Hindu rites on 30th October, 1990 at Jaipur.
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted.
Even prior to the present marriage, the appellant had married one Shanta from whom he has a son.
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 9th March, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in DB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.
