S SANGEETA Vs. K R JARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 2-8-2006 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) in Civil Suit No. 512-A/2005, whereby the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act, 1955) for dissolution of marriage between the respondent and the appellant was allowed. The decree is impugned on the ground that without any proof of adultery the court below has passed the decree of divorce and thereby committed illegality.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, as projected before the Family Court are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 21 -5-1989 according to Hindu rites and rituals in Kerala. Both the appellant and respondent are government servants. After marriage they resided together at Durg and out of their wed-lock two children (son and daughter) were born namely Shreyash and Shruti. The appellant/wife and respondent/husband were successfully leading the married life but in the year 2002 the respondent/husband received excessive telephone bill and on verification it was found that the most of calls were made from Korba and Bilaspur. On this, the respondent/husband enquired from the appellant who told him that she used to telephone her old friend namely Chandrahash Dewangan. This act of the appellant was objected by the respondent but the appellant did not heed his words which caused the respondent grievous mental agony and taking benefit of the status of mind of the respondent, the appellant/ wife took him to one Psychiatrist namely Dr. Pramod Gupta for medical treatment. Thereafter, the appellant/wife in collusion with Dr. Pramod Gupta tried to declare him mental patient by providing improper treatment. On this, the respondent consulted the Psychiatrists at AIMS, New Delhi as also in Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai, who opined that the respondent was not suffering from any mental disorder. The respondent further pleaded that the appellant/wife was a woman of easy virtue and accustomed to make relations with other persons and to fulfill her desire she used to torture the respondent/husband with a view to live separately. In the year 2004 the appellant developed intimacy with one Vinay Dewangan who was called by the appellant in absence of respondent and despite the objection of respondent she continued her relations with him. All the efforts made by the respondent/husband for making good relation with the appellant went in vain. Ultimately, the appellant by giving threats of divorce and implication in a false case of cruelty for dowry, started living separately from the respondent and son. Thereafter, the appellant/wife got issued notices to the respondent and filed a divorce petition (Petition No. 424-A/2004) against the respondent/husband in Family Court, Durg, which was subsequently dismissed on 20-6-2005 as withdrawn. The respondent further pleaded that despite the dismissal of divorce petition, the appellant/wife never made any attempt to reconcile the dispute and to discharge her marital obligations. Thus, the appellant was leading adulterous life avoiding cohabitation with the respondent which led him to file the petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) of the Act, 1955.

(3.) The appellant/wife denied the allegations made by the respondent/ husband in her written statement and alleged that the respondent grabbed her income and jewelleries as also the whole amount received by selling out the house which was built from the income of the appellant/wife. She specifically denied the allegation of adultery and stated that she was not having any illicit relation with any one and was discharging her marital obligations. The appellant/wife specifically alleged that the respondent/husband was suffering from mental disorder "paranoid schizophrenia" for which she took him to Doctor Pramod Gupta at Durg for medical treatment. She further pleaded that the respondent/husband used to call her friends to enjoy wine and share obscene movies and he also used to force the appellant/ wife to apply the techniques of obscene movies in their private life, to which she objected. It was further alleged that once in the year 2004 the respondent/husband tried to kill the appellant by throttling due to which she left the house of the respondent/husband and made complaint against him to Manila Thana, Durg and started living separately from him. Thereafter, being harassed and tortured by the respondent/husband, appellant/wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Family Court, Durg which was subsequently withdrawn by the appellant/wife at the request of the respondent/husband after reconciliation for welfare of their children. She specifically pleaded that the respondent/husband published the advertisement through internet for his second marriage and he also took away the daughter Shruti with him from appellant/wife.