ABHILASHA Vs. DEVENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present appeal, the appellant questions the tenability of the order dated 16.05.2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dwarka, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Family Court') whereby the learned Family Court has passed a judgment and decree in favour of the respondent and against the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'HMA').

(2.) IN the ancient times, the basal thought was that marriage was a prime necessity for that alone could enable a person to discharge properly his religious and secular obligations. The earliest records show that rules of inheritance depended on the rules of marriage and it was obligatory on the father to give the daughter in marriage as gift is given. Marriage a Sacrament: Marriage is necessarily the basis of social organization and foundation of some important legal rights and obligations. The importance and imperative character of the institution of marriage needs no comment. In Hindu Law marriage is treated as a samskara or a sacrament. It is the last of ten sacraments, enjoyed by the Hindu religion for regeneration of men and obligatory in case of every Hindu who does not desire to adopt the life of sanyaasi. From the very commencement of Rig -Vedic age, marriage was a well established institution, and the Aryan ideal of marriage was very high. The high value placed on marriage is shown by the long and striking hymn of Rig -Veda, X, 85; "Be, thou, mother of heroic children, devoted to the Gods, Be, thou, Queen in thy father -in -law's household. May all the Gods unite the hearts of us two into one".

(3.) ASSAILING the legality and correctness of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the appellant made all possible efforts to save her marriage but the respondent tortured and harassed her for not transferring the plot in his name. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that after marriage, the appellant had purchased a plot of land in Sita Puri bearing No. A -120, Gali No. 21, Dabri Sita Puri, New Delhi from the funds generated by her, taking no financial help from the respondent but the respondent had always been insisting the appellant to transfer the said plot in his name and when the appellant refused to do so, the respondent left the company of the appellant on 26th May, 2008. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent has been earning more than Rs. 50,000/ - per month and was duty bound to maintain the appellant and her daughter Bhawna but chose to walk out of the house so as to save himself from the said financial burden. The learned counsel also argued that the learned Family Court also failed to appreciate the fact that it is the appellant who had first approached the learned Trial Court for grant of maintenance had also separately filed a Petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and it is thereafter, that the respondent had filed a Petition under Section 9 of the HMA to seek restitution of the conjugal rights. Based on the above submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant urges for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree.