Devi Dayal vs Vimla

Hemant Gupta, J.—The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-husband seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized on 13th February, 1966. The appellant has sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty which stands dismissed by the learned Family Court on 30.03.2012. It has also been found that the appellant had earlier filed a divorce petition, which was dismissed on 5th February, 1977. The appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed on 10th April, 1978. Thereafter, the present petition for dissolution of marriage was filed on 10th March, 2008. Learned trial court had considered the entire evidence and returned a finding that there is unnecessary and improper delay in the institution of present petition as the same was filed after 30 years of dismissal of the earlier petition and that the parties are living separately since 1973.

It has also been found that the appellant is staying in Guru Gangeshwar Dham Mandir, Karol Bagh, Delhi with a woman namely Radha said to be Sadhvi and that the appellant has purchased HDFC Mutual Funds, ICICI Prudential Funds and Unit Trust of India in which the nominee of the appellant is as alleged Radha Taneja (Sadhvi). The daughter of the appellant has appeared as a witness before the court below and deposed against the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality in the findings recorded or that any evidence has been misread or has not been taken into consideration except to the extent that the respondent has not attended the cremation of son of the parties who died in the year 1986 and also marriage of another daughter.

The said facts will not negate the finding recorded by the learned trial court of unnecessary and improper delay in institution of divorce petition or living of the appellant with Radha Taneja (Sadhvi). In view of the above, we do not find that any ground is made out for dissolution of marriage. There is no error in the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, which may warrant any interference in the appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.