SANDHYA PANDEY Vs. KUNJ BIHAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns an order dated 21.07.2011 which dismissed the petitioner's petition seeking grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioner had married the respondent on 06.05.1990 at Chhapra, Bihar. The petitioner started living along with respondent as husband and wife in her matrimonial home. Two children namely Abhilasha and Master Abhinav were born to them. Petitioner came into her matrimonial home along with gifts and jewellery. However, after marriage unreasonable demands towards money as well as jewellery etc. continued to be made by the respondent and his family members. Since the petitioner's parents were not in a position to meet the said demands of money and jewellery, she was repeatedly beaten up by the respondent while the rest of his family members were extremely inimical and cruel towards her. However, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the respondent by the petitioner's family by taking the same on loan from their relatives. It is stated that despite the payment of the said amount of Rs.50,000/- the behaviour of the respondent and his family members did not improve towards her, rather they became more cruel towards her thereby resulting in torture and abuse of the petitioner in her matrimonial home and she was forced to do the entire household works like a domestic servant there. She alleged that she was thrown out of her matrimonial home on 30.06.2007 along with her two children. On that day all that they had with them were the clothes on their bodies. She sought refuge in one of her relatives' family namely Ashok Singh at D-99, Yadav Nagar, Samaipur Badli, Delhi.

(3.) Although notice of the petitioner was issued to the respondent, but he could not be served through ordinary process but was served by substituted service through publication in Rastriya Sahara, Bihar Edition dated 16.04.2011. Due to default in appearance despite service through publication, the respondent was proceeded ex parte on 02.05.2011. The petitioner recorded her statement in ex parte evidence. However, there was no cross-examination. She reiterated her suffering of cruelty in evidence.