Ashok Kumar Mehta v. Dr.Meeta Bhasin

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 03, 2019 "pp"..

PS – On request, the names of the parties have been concealed and the names are mentioned on a separate header of the judgment, which is ordered to be kept in a sealed cover with the file.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 3rd July, 2019 + FAO 506/2002 & CM No.18768/2009 (u/O VII R-7 CPC) A ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Ekta Sikri, Ms. K. Gayatri, Ms. Aishwarya Anand & Mr. Arun Sanwal, Advs. versus M ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv. AND + MAT.APP. 87/2008 & CMs No.12602/2008 (u/O XLI R-27 CPC) & 18763/2009 (u/O VII R-7 CPC) M ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv. versus A ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Ekta Sikri, Ms. K. Gayatri, Ms. Aishwarya Anand & Mr. Arun Sanwal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. FAO No.506/2002 has been preferred by the appellant husband against the judgment (dated 2nd August, 2002 in HMA No.1103/01/96 of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi) of dismissal of his petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant husband had also filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge pointing out that certain judgments cited at the bar at the time of addressing arguments did not find mention in the judgment. The application was disposed of vide order dated 23rd August, 2002 of the Additional District Judge. The order dated 23rd August, 2002 is also impugned in the appeal. 2. The said appeal came up before this Court first on 24th September, 2002 when notice thereof was ordered to be issued. Vide order dated 14th January, 2004 the appeal was admitted for hearing. The appeal was listed for hearing from time to time but for some reason or the other remained to be heard. 3. MAT Appeal No.87/2008 has been preferred by the appellant wife against the judgment and decree (dated 30th May, 2008 in HMA No.233/2008 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi) allowing the petition of the husband for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act and resultantly dissolving the marriage of the parties. The said appeal came up first before this Court on 3rd September, 2008. Vide order dated 8th September, 2008, notice of the appeal was ordered to be issued and it was ordered that the husband shall not remarry till the next date of hearing. Vide order dated 30th January, 2009, the appeal was admitted for hearing and the interim order confirmed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Trial Court records of both the appeals were requisitioned and have been received. Efforts made from time to time for amicable settlement did not succeed. Since 8th December, 2011, the appeals are being taken up together for hearing. 5. The appeals came up before me on 12th September, 2018 when hearing of the appeal of the wife against the judgment and decree granting divorce on the ground of desertion was commenced and the counsel for the wife argued (i) that the husband alleges desertion w.e.f. 14th January, 1995; (ii) that the husband , on 12th October, 1996 instituted the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty; (iii) that it is only thereafter on 8th September, 2000 that the petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion was filed; (iv) that to be able to sue for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion, desertion for a period of two years is necessary; and, (v) that the husband, prior to the expiry of the said period of two years, applied for divorce on the ground of cruelty and whereafter it was not possible for the wife to join cohabitation with the husband; the filing of the divorce petition on the ground of cruelty was a message to the wife that the husband does not want to live with the wife. 6. On enquiry it was informed that before 14th January, 1995, the wife was employed with the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) at Jaipur, was at Jaipur and the husband who was employed with the Revenue Services, was posted at Agra, but the parti