KAMLESH KUMARI Vs. MEHTAB SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the appellant-wife seeks to challenge the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.07.1996 passed by the learned trial court whereby the divorce petition filed by the husband, respondent herein under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed by the court and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.

(2.) A conspectus of facts based on which the respondent filed the divorce petition are that the respondent got married to the appellant according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 30.06.1982 at Delhi. It is stated that after the marriage on 01.07.1982, the parties went to the house of appellant's parents at Yusuf Sarai and had lunch there and thereafter the appellant's parents did not send the appellant back along with the respondent and the appellant also declined to accompany him without any reason or justification. It is further stated that on 11.07.1982, the respondent again went to the house of the appellant's parents to bring her back and requested her parents to send the appellant along with him but they refused to do so without disclosing any reason. It is further averred that after 15 days i.e. in the last week of July, 1982 the respondent again went to the house of appellant's parents to bring her back, however, after reaching there it was found that the appellant was not present at her parents' house at that time and on persistent enquiries by the respondent her parents told him that the appellant had gone to the house of her sister's husband(jija) Shri Umed Singh at Village Nilothi, Nangloi, Delhi. Thereafter about a month of the marriage of the parties i.e. on or about 30.7.82/1.8.82/2.8.82 father of the respondent called said Shri Umed Singh to his village Sultanpur Majra where the respondent, his elder brother and two uncles were also present where Shri Umed Singh blamed father of the appellant for telling a lie that the appellant was with him at the time when the respondent visited her parents' house to bring her back to matrimonial home. In the evening of 21.08.82, one Shri Kalam Singh and Shri Sri Lal went to the house of Shri Umed Singh at Village Nilothi and found that the appellant was very much there and thus the fact of the appellant living with Shri Umed Singh without the consent or permission of the respondent was confirmed by them. The next day the respondent and his mother also went to the house of Shri Umed Singh at 6 p.m and found the appellant present there and when the respondent and his mother tried to reason out from the appellant as to why she was living with Shri Umed Singh, then she replied that it was her sweet will to go anywhere. This fact was also enquired from Shri Umed Singh in the presence of the appellant and he said that the appellant was his sister-in-law and he had every right over her and that she had come to him with her own will. Despite the request of the respondent and his mother, the appellant did not accompany them to return to her matrimonial home and remained there. It is also stated that in the year 1983-84, the appellant filed a report with the Social Welfare Board, which called Shri Umed Singh, Shri Mohinder Singh and the appellant's maternal uncle Shri Gian Singh and her brother from the appellant's side and from the respondent's side the respondent and his parents were called and on enquiry made by the Welfare Board, it was found that the appellant was living with her brother-in-law (jija) Shri Umed Singh and there was no fault of the respondent and as such reconciliation efforts made by the Board could not take place between the parties. It is also averred that the appellant taunted the respondent as the educational qualification of the appellant was graduate whereas the respondent is a matriculate, which caused cruelty to him. It is also stated that the appellant left the matrimonial home with the intention not to return again, whereas the respondent had made efforts for reconciliation. The parties are stated to be living separately since 1.7.82 and the appellant has deserted the respondent from the first day of marriage without any reasonable cause. The appellant has even not made any efforts to come back to the matrimonial home as she has been staying with her brother-in-law (jija).

(3.) The appellant in her written statement however, admitted the factum of her marriage with the respondent on 30.6.82 but denied the allegation of cruelty and desertion. The appellant has leveled allegation that the respondent and his parents used to taunt her on account of bringing insufficient dowry and that the main demand of the respondent was a two-wheeler scooter which was not met by the appellant's parents. It is also alleged that the brother of the appellant who had come to take the appellant on 5.7.82 was humiliated, taunted and was coerced to part with the two-wheeler scooter on which he had come to take her back and the respondent and his parents warned the brother of the appellant that in case the scooter was not arranged at the earliest the appellant may not be sent to her matrimonial home and the respondent would also not come to take her back. It is also alleged that thereafter i.e 5.7.82 the respondent never came to take her back. It is denied that the appellant was ever living with her brother-in-law (jija) Shri Umed Singh or that the respondent and his mother ever went to the house of said Shri Umed Singh on 22.8.82 or that the appellant was present in the house of Shri Umed Singh on that day. It is stated that the appellant was forced to make report to Anti Dowry Cell of Delhi Police which report of her was referred by the Anti Dowry Cell to the Social Welfare Board. The factum of summoning of persons from both sides is admitted by the appellant, however, it is denied that the Social Welfare Board held in its enquiry that the appellant was living with her brother-in-law (jija) Shri Umed Singh or that there was no fault of the respondent. It is asserted that the respondent flatly refused before the said Board to bring the appellant back to the matrimonial home. It is alleged that it was the appellant who had been deprived by the respondent and had caused mental agony and torture to her by not taking her to the matrimonial home for demand of two wheeler scooter and other articles. It is also stated that on an application made by the appellant to the Anti Dowry Cell the case was proceeded against the respondent and the Anti Dowry Cell came to the conclusion that it was a fit case for investigation and accordingly a case was registered against the respondent for demanding dowry and the respondent and his family members were arrested by the police, but subsequently were enlarged on bail. It is also alleged that it is the respondent who had deserted the appellant since 5.7.82 and had not bothered to take her back to the matrimonial home for his greed of dowry and did not allow her to enter the matrimonial home in spite of repeated panchayat meetings between the parties, their relatives and respectable persons of the village. It is also stated that the appellant has been forced to live with her parents since 5.7.82 due to greed/demand of dowry by the respondent.