Pratibha Rani JUDGMENT
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. The appellant/husband is aggrieved by the judgment dated September 03, 2015 whereby his petition filed under Section 13(1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on ground of desertion has been dismissed by learned Judge, Family Court, Delhi.
2. Admitted facts are that the appellant/husband got married to the respondent/wife on May 05, 1992 according to Hindu rites. The parties stayed together for a short duration which as per the appellant/husband is 42 days and as per the respondent/wife is 25 days. During this short stay, the respondent conceived and gave birth to a son on February 19, 1993. The parties continued living separately even after birth of the son and thereafter on August 26, 1994 the respondent/wife lodged FIR No. 500/1994 under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC at PS Sriniwas Puri against the appellant. However, the matter was compromised and the parties started living together in terms of the settlement entered into on October 13, 2003 and resumed cohabitation.
3. On April 06, 2004 the respondent/wife gave birth to a female child. The respondent/wife again left her matrimonial home in the year 2005 and had not returned thereafter. In the year 2012 the appellant/husband filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of the conjugal rights which has been dismissed by learned Judge, Family Court, Meerut. Thereafter he filed the petition seeking dissolution of marriage on account of desertion by the respondent which has been dismissed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Delhi and assailed before this Court by way of this appeal.
4. Mr. Karunesh Tandon, Advocate for the appellant/husband has submitted that it was a case where the respondent/wife was to be blamed for breakdown of the marriage. All efforts by the appellant/husband to bring her back failed initially, but after the compromise the appellant/husband had resided at the paternal house of the respondent/wife for about 10 months so that their matrimonial life could be saved. But even that attempt failed. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he had been taking care of both the children despite that the respondent/wife had deserted him and also abandoned both the children. Even the son of the parties who was earlier residing with the appellant/husband had now gone back to the respondent/wife but the daughter is still with the appellant/husband.
5. The appellant who was present in person submitted that all his efforts to save the marriage had failed. He had taken an extra step by living at his in-laws' house for about 10 months despite that on the festival of Rakshabandhan he was asked to move out and thereafter till date the respondent/wife had failed to return. The appellant has submitted that more than ten years have passed and respondent/wife has no intention to resume cohabitation and this relationship is just for name sake, hence the impugned order may be set aside and decree of divorce may be passed.
6. Mr. Ghanshyam Mishra, Advocate for the respondent/wife has submitted that the respondent/wife was harassed by her husband and in-laws on two counts: (i) for not bringing sufficient dowry; and (ii) her complexion was dark for which she was taunted. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife has contended that the appellant/husband had remarried as was deposed by RW-2 Janmesh @ Aman Sharma - son of the parties though this fact was not believed by learned Judge, Family Court. Attention of this Cour........