SUMAN KHANNA Vs. MUNEESH KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the Appellant seeks to set aside the judgment and decree dated 3rd June, 2003 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi, whereby the petition filed by the Respondent under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the said Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal are that the parties got married on 13.4.90 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Problems started from the very inception of the marriage from the time of the honeymoon and continued till the time they stayed together. The main allegation of the Respondent was that the Appellant was under the influence of her parents and would leave the matrimonial home time and again. Disturbed by the cruel conduct of the Appellant, the Respondent filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion which vide judgment and decree dated 3. 6.03 was granted on the ground of cruelty. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. R.P. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the Exhibit PW-1/1, on which reliance has been placed by the learned trial court, was forcefully got signed from the Appellant. The contention of the counsel was that the Respondent husband clearly told the Appellant that if she wanted to save her marriage then she had to sign the said agreement. Counsel thus submitted that the said agreement was not signed by the Appellant out of her own will and volition, but only with a view to save her matrimony. So far the allegation of suicide against the Appellant is concerned, counsel contended that the Respondent in his own cross-examination has admitted the fact that the Appellant could not have inserted her finger in the socket due to the narrow width of the hole. Counsel further submitted that the Respondent had also admitted in his cross-examination that there were no power plugs in any portion of the tenanted home where the parties were living together. Counsel also submitted that the Respondent also failed to prove the fact that the Appellant made any attempt to commit suicide by laying herself in front of the DTC bus. The contention of the counsel was that the Appellant being a working woman has been traveling quite often in the DTC buses and, therefore, she was not expected to take such a step. Counsel also submitted that so far the affidavit Exhibit PW-1/2 is concerned, firstly the same was not proved in accordance with the law and secondly nobody would execute such an affidavit unless the same was to be filed in a court of law. Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the allegation of the Respondent that he was not served with dinner when he visited his in laws in the month of May, 1990 is highly improbable. The contention of counsel for the Appellant was that it would be inconceivable that once the husband was invited over dinner by the in-laws then he would not be served with dinner while the other family members would take dinner. Counsel thus stated that the learned Trial Court has wrongly placed much reliance on this incident, which in the given circumstances was highly improbable.