KB Vs. SS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as 'HMA') assails the judgment & decree dated 21.03.2009 passed in HMA 128/2008 by Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi, whereby the learned ADJ while allowing the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA, has passed a decree of dissolution of marriage in favour of the respondent/husband and against the appellant/wife.

(2.) The parties were married on 21.07.2003 in Delhi. One issue was born out of the wedlock on 29.05.2004 at Chandigarh. In his petition, the respondent/husband averred that after coming back from the honeymoon, the appellant lived with the respondent and his family only for a few days. Thereafter, the appellant left for Chandigarh to resume her work, and the respondent along with his parents was living in Delhi. The respondent claimed that when the appellant conceived, the respondent requested her to return to Delhi at her matrimonial home. However, she did not return. The respondent further alleged that the respondent only came to know of the birth of the child from the wife of the landlord of the house at Chandigarh on the following day, and no endeavour was made by the appellant or her family to inform the respondent. The respondent was not allowed to see or touch the child when he went to see the child at Chandigarh. He was also not allowed to conduct the birth ceremonies. Further, the respondent alleged that after coming back from Chandigarh, the appellant, instead of coming to her matrimonial home went to her parental home. The appellant threatened the respondent and his family members with implication in a false dowry case. Thereafter, she filed a complaint dated 13.02.2006 in CAW Cell, on allegations of harassment and infidelity. Even after the settlement of the complaint in the CAW Cell, when the appellant came back to the matrimonial house, she did not fulfill the family obligations and duties as a wife and daughter -in -law.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the appellant/wife, she denied all the allegations and stated that she fulfilled all her matrimonial duties. She claimed that the respondent was informed on the day of delivery of the birth of the child, but he refused to come to Chandigarh. The information was communicated through an SMS and through a telephone call made by the father of the appellant. She admitted that the respondent visited Chandigarh after the birth of the child. However, she denied that the appellant did not allow him to touch the child or conduct birth ceremonies. She further claimed that on 26.01.2006, when a reconciliation meeting was held, the respondent refused to take the appellant to the matrimonial home. Even after the settlement in CAW Cell, the respondent and his family members harassed the appellant for bringing insufficient dowry and raised more demands. On 03.09.2006, when the appellant returned to her matrimonial home from work along with the child, the door was not opened and she was forced to stand in the rain. Left with no option, she had to return to her parental home.