ADARSH PARKASH SRIVASTAVA Vs. SARITA SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the husband is directed against a judgment and decree dated 17-7-1984 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby his petition under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called "the Act") for divorce on the ground of cruelty, was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant filed a petition under S. 13(l)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. It was alleged that the parties were married at Ghaziabad according to Hindu rites and custom on 25-1-1981. They resided together after the marriage at Shahdara and a daughter was born from the wedlock on January 21,1982. Soon after the marriage the appellant found that the respondent was very arrogant and unadjustable in nature. The acts of cruelty, as alleged in the petition, are :

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent-wife. In the written statement, she denied all the allegations of cruelty alleged against her. She pleaded that the real cause of disharmony between the parties was the greed of the appellant for extra dowry. According to her, the appellant had made her life miserable and she had no option but to write to her father for some extra dowry. Her father in order to save the marriage sent a bank draft of Rs. 7000.00 to the appellant in July 1981 i.e. barely six months after the marriage. However, this amount also did not satisfy the appellant and he wanted more and more money which her parents could illafford. It is further pleaded in the written statement that she kept on staying with the appellant in order to save her marriage till 16-2-1983, on which date she was removed by the appellant to Marry Stops Centre, Nursing Home, Shahdara for abortion. After she was discharged from the said Nursing Home, the appellant took her to her parents' house forrest and promised to take her back after she had fully recovered. However, the appellant never came back to take her to the matrimonial home. It is further pleaded that she was given beating on various dates mentioned by her in the written statement as she failed to bring the extra dowry from her parents. She pleaded that she was still willing to live with the appellant as a good wife provided the Court could safeguard her interest, and the appellant could give an undertaking that he will behave in a manner becoming to an educated and civilized human being.