Raghu (a junior clerk in a private company, earning equivalent to INR. 11,000 per month since last seven years) and Parineeta (a housewife), are both Hindus, and married in the year 2009 according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HMA’). Raghu has filed a petition in June 2014 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA in the District
Court of Fancyland seeking divorce from Parineeta on the ground that she has been committing cruelty on him since January 2013.
Raghu adduced the following evidence in support of his case:
1. His mother (PW1), who is a 75 year old widow residing in their matrimonial home, testified, that Parineeta had on 26 Jan. 2013 asked Raghu to go to a movie in
Multiplex, as she wanted to see a new movie every week. When Raghu told her, that he was unwell, Parineeta …show more content…
She also denies the truth in the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, and states that PW3 does not know the content of her loud speech but has only heard her shouts.
Parineeta, who is an orphan, adduces the following other evidence:
1. Kantilal (RW1), who is a peon in the same office in which Parineeta works, testifies, that Raghu and Madhubala are very close friends, and are usually found chatting with each other in free time. They usually have lunch alone together in the dining area of the company, although there is about a staff of 50 personnel. RW1 states, that he had seen this somewhat close relationship between Raghu and
Madhubala almost since Madhubala joined the office.
2. There are several call records produced, which can be duly admitted, which show around 30-40 minutes long conversations between Raghu and Madhubala, sometimes in late evenings. Raghu states, that he was depressed and Madhubala is a friend and colleague, and so he used to share his agony, which his wife inflicted, with her.
Sometime, he says, the conversations were official, as Madhubala is his subordinate, in the same
Court of Fancyland seeking divorce from Parineeta on the ground that she has been committing cruelty on him since January 2013.
Raghu adduced the following evidence in support of his case:
1. His mother (PW1), who is a 75 year old widow residing in their matrimonial home, testified, that Parineeta had on 26 Jan. 2013 asked Raghu to go to a movie in
Multiplex, as she wanted to see a new movie every week. When Raghu told her, that he was unwell, Parineeta …show more content…
She also denies the truth in the testimony of PWs 1 and 2, and states that PW3 does not know the content of her loud speech but has only heard her shouts.
Parineeta, who is an orphan, adduces the following other evidence:
1. Kantilal (RW1), who is a peon in the same office in which Parineeta works, testifies, that Raghu and Madhubala are very close friends, and are usually found chatting with each other in free time. They usually have lunch alone together in the dining area of the company, although there is about a staff of 50 personnel. RW1 states, that he had seen this somewhat close relationship between Raghu and
Madhubala almost since Madhubala joined the office.
2. There are several call records produced, which can be duly admitted, which show around 30-40 minutes long conversations between Raghu and Madhubala, sometimes in late evenings. Raghu states, that he was depressed and Madhubala is a friend and colleague, and so he used to share his agony, which his wife inflicted, with her.
Sometime, he says, the conversations were official, as Madhubala is his subordinate, in the same