RAJENDER KUMAR Vs. MANJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal assails the judgment dated 30.03.2005 in HMA No. 140 of 1998 whereby the learned ADJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi rejected the appellant/husband's petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the 'Act').

(2.) The parties were married as per Hindu rites on 05.05.1992. A girl Surbhi was born to them. The husband alleged that the wife's behavior towards him and his family was not cordial and that she made demands which were beyond his financial means; that she and her family abused and also threatened him with physical violence; that she insisted on living separately from the parents of the husband; and she further threatened to implicate him and his family in false dowry demand cases. The petition narrates various dates and instances of acts of cruelty. Hence the husband/petitioner prayed for dissolution of their marriage on the ground of cruelty.

(3.) The wife, in her Written Statement (WS), denied all the allegations. She submitted that, it was in fact, the husband and his family who were cruel to her; that she never abandoned her husband; that in fact she was subjected to physical brutality, even their minor daughter was not spared from the husband's act of violence and of his family members; that the extent of physical violence was so severe that the wife gave birth to a stillborn child, and even during this emotional trauma and physical tragedy, neither the husband nor his family members visited her in the hospital nor reached out to commiserate her; that the husband did not pay for any of the expenses incurred for the delivery, neither did he offer to reimburse the expenses to the family of the wife. It was submitted that the husband and his family made several demands for dowry on the wife and her failure to bring the amount demanded, only lead to more violence towards her. The family of the wife had to struggle to gather such large amounts in order to save her from being harassed any further. It was unequivocally denied that the wife ever asked the husband to live separately from his family or that he had complied with such a demand. It was submitted that the complaint made to CAW Cell was compromised with an assurance that the husband and his family members shall not make any more demands for dowry and instead would take care of the wife and their minor daughter in the matrimonial home. However none of the assurances were met.