ANITA GAUR Vs. RAJESH GAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 7.12.2016, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Suit No. 446/2014, whereby the suit of the plaintiff-husband (respondent herein) for dissolution of marriage was decreed.

(2.) Since all efforts of mediation, at the instance of this Court, failed and the parties could not persuade themselves into a relationship of cordiality, we heard learned Counsel for the rival parties on the merits of this appeal.

(3.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary for deciding the present appeal, are that the marriage of Sri Rajesh Gaur (plaintiff-respondent) was solemnized with Smt. Anita Gaur (defendant-appellant) on 12.5.1999 as per Hindu customs and ceremonies. Immediately after the marriage, the couple shifted to Mumbai where the plaintiff-respondent was running his business. Two children, namely, Km. Rishita and Master Divanshu born out of the said wedlock. On 3.6.2014, husband (plaintiffrespondent) instituted a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the wife (defendant-appellant) seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. In his plaint, it was alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that about five years ago, there came a sudden change in the behaviour of the defendant-appellant (wife); that the valuable articles, jewelries, cash, etc. started missing from the house; 2-3 years thereafter, plaintiff-respondent started receiving telephone calls of crooked persons asking him either to return the money else the plaintiffrespondent would be abducted; that on being asked, defendant-appellant informed the plaintiff-respondent that she had borrowed money on interest @ 10 per cent per month and she also purchased ornaments and clothes on credit; that the defendant-appellant started quarreling with the plaintiff-respondent and she also threatened that she would get him abducted; that those who had lent money started chasing the plaintiff-respondent and also threatened to capture his flat; apprehending threat to his life and liberty, the plaintiff-respondent along with his wife (defendant-appellant) returned to Dehradun on 11.12.2013; thereafter a Panchayat was held in the village in which the defendant-appellant admitted her mistakes; that the defendant-appellant also admitted her mistakes in writing; that even thereafter the defendant-appellant quarreled with the plaintiff-respondent and created scene on a number of occasions; and that it was not possible for the plaintiff-respondent to continue to live with the defendant-appellant.