Jagmohan Goswami v. Sudha Saxena

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST 20, 2018 SR/bs (corrected & released on 18th October, 2018)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 20th August, 2018. + JAGMOHAN GOSWAMI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Rajinder Dhawan, Mr. B. S. Rana and Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocates. Versus SUDHA SAXENA ..... Respondent Through: Respondent-in-person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This appeal under Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 impugns the judgment and decree [dated 17th September, 2003 in HMA 239/2000/98 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi] of dismissal of the petition filed by the appellant husband for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act. 2. The appeal came up first before this Court on 17th November, 2003, when notice thereof was ordered to be issued and the Trial Court record requisitioned. Vide order dated 15th December, 2004, the appellant husband was directed to pay to the respondent wife ₹15,000/- on account of litigation expenses. The order dated 14th February, 2006 records that the said amount had been paid. Vide order dated 23rd March, 2007, the appeal was ordered to be admitted. On 23rd October, 2008, the appeal was dismissed in default on non-appearance of either of the parties but on application of the appellant husband was, vide order dated 29th March, 2011, restored to its original position. Since then, the appeal is being adjourned from time to time. The appeal was listed last on 17th July, 2018, when the respondent appeared in person and stated that her advocate Mr. Sunil Mittal was busy in another Court and unable to argue on that date. Though an attempt was made to hear the counsel for the appellant, but he also sought adjournment. In the circumstances, the appeal was listed for hearing for today, making it clear that no further adjournment shall be granted. 3. Today, the respondent appearing in person, states that she is unable to afford an advocate and will argue in person. The counsel for the appellant has been heard and the Trial Court record requisitioned perused. 4. The counsel for the appellant has taken me through the impugned judgment and decree and particularly to internal pages 19 to 28 thereof in which the learned Additional District Judge has crystalized seven incidents of cruelty on which the appellant husband had sought divorce and has dealt with each of the said incidents. The counsel for the appellant husband states that he is not pressing the first and the sixth incident and has argued on the rest of the incidents and findings thereon. Upon enquiry, whether the learned Additional District Judge, while dealing with each of the alleged incidents of cruelty has missed out any evidence, for the need to look into the evidence recorded, the counsel for the appellant states that the entire evidence has been discussed. 5. During the course of hearing, it has been informed that the appellant husband and the respondent wife have both retired from their respective employments; while the appellant husband was working in the Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation and retired as Deputy Manager, the respondent wife was working with State Trading Corporation and retired as Manager; that the marriage between the parties took place on 9th May, 1997; at that time, the appellant/husband was 42 years of age and the respondent wife was 41 years of age (the respondent wife states she was 38 years of age at that time) 6. It is not in dispute that the parties, for their honeymoon went to Manali and stayed there from 16th May, 1997 to 20th May, 1997. The second incident of cruelty was of the respondent wife, at Manali, comparing the appellant husband with the waiter of the hotel in which the parties were residing. The third incident of cruelty is of 20th May, 1997 (incorrectly recorded in the judgment as 28th May, 1997), while the parties were still at Manali; it is the case of the appellant husband that at the club house, some other persons passed certain remarks against the respondent wife; though the appe