NITU AGGARWAL Vs. GIREESH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the Appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and decree dated 27.4.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby a decree of judicial separation was passed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the parties got married on 5.11.03 at Noida according to Hindu rites and ceremonies and a female child was born out of wedlock on 14.9.04. The matrimonial relations between the parties were stained right from the very beginning of their married life and distressed by the behaviour of the Appellant, the Respondent filed a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty which vide judgment dated 27.4.10 was granted. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the Appellant has filed the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Rajiv Shukla, counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned trial court has wrongly assumed that the Appellant had consumed some poisonous substance with a view to commit suicide. The contention of the counsel for the Appellant is that the Respondent used to compel and force the Appellant to consume certain medicines under the pretext that the same were good for her health and for the child in the womb. Counsel further submits that the Respondent also failed to prove on record that an attempt of suicide by the Appellant was made with a view to coerce the Respondent to accede to any of her demands and in the absence of any such assertion on the part of the Respondent, no logic or rationale behind the alleged attempt of suicide by the Appellant could be established by the Respondent. Explaining the contradiction on the part of the Appellant in the FIR lodged by her under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, counsel submits that even if the Appellant in the said FIR took a stand that the Respondent had given her something to drink, the same will not make any difference vis-?-vis her stand in the matrimonial proceedings where she had stated that the Respondent used to administer some medicines. Counsel thus submits that there was a minor variation in the stand of the Appellant which would not amount to any kind of self contradiction on her part. Counsel thus states that there is clear infirmity and perversity in the findings of the learned trial court on this aspect and the same should be set aside.