LAWS(DLH)-2023-12-177

NEETA AMAR Vs. VIPUL AMAR

Decided On December 20, 2023
Neeta Amar Appellant
V/S
Vipul Amar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Any successful marriage is built on mutual respect and faith. If either is compromised beyond a level, the end of the relationship is inevitable as no relationship can stand on half-truth, half-lies, half-respect and half-faith. 1. An Appeal under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred on behalf of the appellant/wife against the Judgment dtd. 31/8/2016 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi vide which divorce has been granted on the ground of cruelty, in the petition filed by the respondent/husband under 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as "HMA").

(2.) Briefly stated, the parties got married on 28/2/2000 and one son, Rudraksha, was born from their wedlock on 27/4/2004. The respondent/husband has asserted that during the pre-nuptial negotiations it was falsely projected that the appellant/wife is an MBA. However, after the marriage, he came across the educational documents of the appellant and could not find any MBA Certificate. He also found that most of the certificates were in different names and on inquiry from the appellant she stated that her father used to write her name differently in the educational records anything to make the so called DATA look "colorful". She further admitted that she was not an MBA graduate but was advised to claim so in her matrimonial home.

(3.) The respondent asserted that he had an excellent schooling and had more than a "literate tag" and the intellectual level of both the parties could not match since the very inception. The appellant being aware of her handicap, joined English Speaking Schools and similar courses for improvement of her speaking skills in the English language. She also joined Priya Warrick Finishing School in the month of May, 2001. The respondent claimed that he spent lot of money in getting her admitted to various English Speaking Schools and Finishing Schools, but to his shock and surprise the appellant did not attend any of these programs for more than 2-3 days, resulting in wasteful expenditure and financial strain.