SANJIV KUMAR JINDAL Vs. ANIL KUMARI @ NEELAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The thematic setting of the case pleaded by the appellant seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnized on December 18, 1999 with the respondent as per Hindu Rites and Customs is that right from day one of the marriage the attitude of the respondent was cold towards him and his family members. Residing with his parents, appellant's mother had to perform all household chores. As a working lady, the respondent would leave the house early morning at 8.00 A.M. This queer conduct of respondent baffled the appellant and his parents who discussed the same with parents of the respondents but got no satisfactory answer. Returning home late everyday, when questioned, respondent would tersely say that nobody had a right to interfere in her personal life. On the occasion of the marriage of her brother the respondent left the matrimonial home on June 10, 2000, by which date she was in the family way but did not tell the appellant or his family members of the same. She never returned to her matrimonial house and gave birth to a male child on March 29, 2001, for which no information whatsoever was given to the appellant or his family members and this caused immense mental torture when they learnt that the respondent was blessed with a male child. All of a sudden, on June 02, 2001, accompanied by the infant son born, the respondent and her father came to the parental house of the appellant and assured that henceforth respondent would behave properly. The couple were united. Initially respondent behaved normally but with the passage of time she became rude and callous. She even started abusing the appellant and his family members causing humiliation and immense mental cruelty. She behaved abnormally alleging that appellant's family members were stealing her medicines. The appellant thought it advisable to shift from the house of his parents and thus took on rent a residential accommodation at Rani Bagh. In March 2002 the appellant learnt that the respondent was once again in the family way but she aborted the pregnancy. On the same dates in July 2003, appellant's mother and minor child had to be hospitalized. Unmindful that the appellant could not be at two hospitals and had to be where his mother was admitted, the respondent refused to be with the child admitted in the other hospital. Appellant's mother was admitted at Ganga Ram hospital and the child at G.T.K. hospital. The respondent would keep aloof and talk to herself. Things did not improve. On May 13, 2005, the appellant took the respondent to Vaishno Devi, and in the train she behaved abnormally by standing near the door of the train and did not pay heed to appellant's request not to do so. That on March 20, 2007, the respondent vanished from the matrimonial house and this compelled the appellant to lodge a missing person complaint. Respondent returned the next day and said that she had gone to Vaishno Devi. On March 21, 2007 the respondent permanently deserted the appellant and went to her parental house. She did not return, till when the petition was filed in the year 2010.

(2.) In the written statement, the respondent denied that her behaviour was humiliating or of a kind which caused mental trauma to the appellant or his parents. She pleaded that her entire salary was pocketed by her in- laws who would torture her for dowry. She said that she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house when her brother got married due to trauma inflicted upon her consequent to dowry demands. She admitted that while staying with her parents a male child was born to her. She admitted returning back to her matrimonial house on June 02, 2001 and living separately with her husband. She denied leaving the house to make a trip to Vaishno Devi on March 20, 2007. She denied all other allegations, admitting that since March 21, 2007 she was living with the parents.

(3.) The appellant examined himself as his witness and the respondent examined herself as a witness. It thus became a word of mouth versus a word of mouth; with the documentary evidence in the form of missing persons complaint Ex.PW-1/9 lodged by the appellant and Ex.PW-1/5 being certificate issued by the competent authority in the office of the respondent showing that for purpose of abortion the appellant had availed leave in the month of February, 2002. Other exhibited documents are not being noted because they are irrelevant.