VED PRAKASH GULATI Vs. KUSUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the appellant-husband seeks to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2003 passed by the learned trial court whereby the divorce petition filed by the appellant husband under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.

(2.) Broad facts of the case as per the appellant are that the appellant-husband got married to the respondentwife according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 15.02.1997 and out of the said wedlock one son was born on 17.10.1997. After the marriage, both of them started living in the matrimonial home at Keshav Kunj, Vikaspuri. The appellant husband has filed the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and so far the allegations are concerned, it is alleged by the appellant that in the month of June, 1997 the respondent started pressurizing the appellant to live separately from his parents and when the appellant expressed his inability to do so the respondent picked up quarrel with him and left the matrimonial home in the end of July, 1997 and that she was brought back to the matrimonial home by the appellant in the month of August, 1997 on her assurance that she will not raise the demand of living separately but there was no change in the behaviour of the respondent and she continued to press the said unreasonable demand even while she was in advanced stage of pregnancy. It is also the case of the appellant that the respondent was disrespectful to him as well to his parents. It is further alleged that on 17.10.1997 the respondent gave birth to a child and thereafter went to her parents house to reside and when the appellant had gone to bring back the respondent on 28.10.1997 to celebrate the first Diwali at the matrimonial home, the respondent refused to accompany him without assigning any reason. The respondent ultimately joined the matrimonial home only in the end of November, 1997, but even thereafter there was no change in her behaviour and she used to pick up quarrel with the appellant and his other family members on one pretext or the other. It is also the case of the appellant that the respondent did not perform any household chores and even when he met with an accident and remained confined to bed for 3-4 days, the respondent refused to attend him. It is further alleged that in the second week of December, 1998 the respondent started accusing the appellant of having illicit relationship with the washerwoman of the locality and also with a female employee of the factory where the appellant was employed. The respondent also used to make telephone calls in the office of the appellant so as to verify his presence in the factory and also to enquire from the person receiving her call about his illicit relations with the female employee of the factory. It is further the case of the appellant that the respondent went to reside at her parents house in the first week of April, 1998 so as to attend the marriage of her brother in the first week of May, 1998 and despite insistence of the appellant the respondent did not join back the matrimonial home till August, 1998 and during this entire period the respondent kept on insisting to arrange a separate accommodation. It is further alleged that on 02.10.1998 the respondent accused mother of the appellant of performing 'jadu tona' on the child. It is further the case of the appellant that the respondent went to her parents house on 17.10.1998 and she did not join the matrimonial home even on second Diwali despite his request and returned back to join him only in the first week of November, 1998 and again started raising the demand of separate residence or transfer of the flat in her name and when the appellant refused to do so the respondent threatened to lodge a complaint before the Crime Against Women Cell. It is also the case of the appellant that the appellant arranged a separate house i.e. house bearing No.353, Pocket E-19, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi when he found the unrelenting and adamant attitude of the respondent and even despite arranging the separate residence the appellant did not find any change in the behaviour of the respondent. It is further the case of the appellant that on 09.05.1999 the parents of the appellant came to see him and the child, but the respondent did not allow them to enter the house and started shouting at them with the result that they returned back without seeing either the appellant or the child. It is also the case of the appellant that whenever he returned late from his factory, the respondent used to pick up quarrel with him. It is also the case of the appellant that no cohabitation between the parties has taken place since 09.05.1999. It is also the case of the appellant that he had made a programme to go to Vaishno Devi along with his friend and he had even got the tickets for 02.10.1999, but the respondent refused to accompany him by alleging that the appellant had plans to kill her. It is also the case of the appellant that the respondent turned him out from the matrimonial home and finding no alternative he started residing with his parents. As per the appellant, all the said acts of the respondent caused grave mental cruelty to him and to his parents and he filed a petition under section 13(1)(ia) of the Act which vide judgment and decree dated 7.3.03 was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) On the other hand, the respondent has controverted the abovesaid allegations leveled by the appellant and she took a stand that she never treated the appellant with cruelty. The respondent also stated that she never asked for a separate residence or for the transfer of the flat in her name and that in fact the appellant took a separate residence on his own as he never wanted to reside with his parents. The respondent also denied having accused the appellant of having illicit relationship with any lady. It is also the case of the respondent that the appellant had attempted to take her nude photographs during the period of honeymoon. It is also the case of the respondent that she was harassed and tortured by the appellant and his family members on account of her bringing insufficient dowry. It is also the case of the respondent that the appellant did not attend the marriage of her brother despite invitation. It is also the case of the respondent that the appellant deliberately did not attend the marriage, as he had sold the entire jewelery of the respondent which fact was learnt by the respondent from one Mr.K.L.Minocha, uncle of the appellant. It is also the case of the respondent that she always used to do the household jobs and she also took due care of the appellant when he met with a minor accident. She also denied ever humiliating her father-in-law and mother-in-law. It is also the case of the respondent that the appellant brought her to the matrimonial home at Diwali and they started living separately at Rohini since 10.04.1999 and that they stayed together at Rohini till 02.10.1999 and thereafter the appellant disappeared from the said house without even informing the respondent. After waiting for about 20 days, the respondent returned to her parents house, as her father-in-law had refused her to enter the matrimonial home. Based on these averments, the respondent submitted that she never treated the appellant with cruelty and, therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrongs.