MAYA TIWARI Vs. AJAY @ BABA SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, Appellant Smt. Maya Tiwari has questioned the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 21-10-2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 53-A/2005 whereby learned Judge has dismissed the petition of the Appellant filed under Section 13(1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the Appellant herein was married with the Respondent herein on 21-06-97 according to Hindu rites and custom. Both the parties are Kanyakubja Brahmin and they are governed by the Hindu law. According to the averments made in the plaint, before marriage the Respondent was asked to send his horoscope. The said horoscope was sent by the father of the Respondent by writing the same on postcard. Based on that the marriage was solemnized. After the marriage when the Appellant went to the house of the Respondent, on the next day, she came to know that the Respondent gave incorrect information regarding his educational qualification, age as also the fact that he is not a Manglik, thereby the Respondent married the Appellant by practicing fraud on the Appellant. The Appellant suffered a mental shock. The Appellant being a Government Officer was not able to tolerate the said fraud. When the Appellant asked the Respondent as to why he has practiced fraud, he replied that now nothing can happen, she has to lead her married life with him. When the Appellant asked the Respondent that she will not be in a position to lead married life with him, the Respondent became angry and started abusing, as a result of which the Appellant suffered more mental agony. After 3 days of the marriage on 24-6-97 when her father arrived Ambikapur in order to take the Appellant to her parental house, she apprised her father about the fraud practiced on them, on which her father asked the Respondent and his father about the fraud practiced by them as to why they have practiced fraud, on which the Respondent and his father simply laughed and did not reply. She returned to Raipur along with her father.

(3.) AFTER taking charge, she proceeded for one month's leave and she came back to Raipur. After availing one month's leave, on 11-10-97 the Appellant herein again went to Ambikapur. When she went to the in-laws' house, the Respondent asked her that he will not allow her to perform her duties there. He will get her transferred, which shocked the Appellant. The Appellant herein asked him as to why he is behaving in cruel manner, on which the Respondent told her that she is not giving salary to them, she is taking salary to her father's house and spending salary on her sisters and brothers, then the Appellant replied that in advance she apprised him that sisters and brothers are dependent on her, therefore, she has to maintain them. At that time, he did not say anything that the Appellant will be required to give salary to him. Hearing this, the Respondent said that there is no gain saying in irrelevant discussion. If she wants to remain with him, she has to lead life as per his wishes. Hearing this, the Appellant felt that how she will be able to lead her matrimonial life with this person because he has his eyes on her money.