LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-606

SUPERNA ROY Vs. GANESH ROY

Decided On July 27, 2012
SUPERNA ROY Appellant
V/S
GANESH ROY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant assails the judgment dated 08.05.2012 passed by Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Addl. Principal Judge, Family Courts, Rohini, New Delhi in a petition preferred by the respondent under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Act) to seek dissolution of marriage with the appellant herein.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the parties were married on 24.02.1999 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Village and Post Office Purnal, District Howrah, West Bengal. They were blessed with a son, named, Arnav Roy on 02.12.1999. The chief allegation of the respondent in support of his case of cruelty against the appellant, as pleaded in the petition, was that the appellant deprived the respondent of marital bliss, i.e. of conjugal relationship between the parties. The respondent alleged that the appellant did not allow him to have physical relationship with her after the birth of their son despite his persuasions and best efforts. According to him the appellant did not bother about his wishes, desires and sentiments. Various other allegations with regard to her behaviour and conduct qua the respondent and his family members were also made.

(3.) IN her written statement, the appellant denied the averments made by the respondent as a bunch of lies. She claimed that she was made a dowry victim in her matrimonial home, though her parents had spent huge amount of money at the time of her marriage and given her jewellery, costly clothes, furniture and other allied items and cash etc. She also alleged that all her dowry articles/stridhan had been illegally/unlawfully retained by the respondent and his parents. She claimed that the respondent and his family members beat her on several occasions for not brining sufficient dowry items in marriage. In para 12 of her written statement, the appellant also alleged that the respondent was having an illicit relationship with another woman and that he wanted to get rid of the appellant to marry the said woman.