SMT. INDU KUKREJA Vs. SRI DEEPAK KUKREJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the common questions of law and facts are involved in the above numbered appeals, hence these are being taken together and are being adjudicated by this common judgment.

(2.) These appeals are instituted against the judgment dated 05.12.2015 rendered by learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in O.S. No.333 of 2011 (Deepak Kukreja Vs. Smt. Indu Kukreja). The respondent/husband has instituted a suit under Sec. 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the appellant for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The appellant has filed the reply and counter claim. The trial court allowed the suit filed by the respondent-husband under Sec. 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and dismissed the counter claim filed by the appellant vide impugned judgment dated 05.12.2015.

(3.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of these appeals, are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.04.2003. One son was born out of the wedlock on 05.04.2004. According to the material placed on record, the relations between the parties were cordial for few years, but thereafter, their relations deteriorated. According to the averments made in the plaint, the appellant used to harass the respondent-husband. She also used to harass the family members of the respondent. The quarrel took place on 26.09.2010. The wife/appellant made wild allegations against her husband that he had illicit relations with his mother. The neighbours came on the spot and this incident was witnessed by them. The acts of the wife-appellant have caused physical and mental cruelty to the respondent-husband. The allegations were refuted by the appellant. According to the appellant, she was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. She was not properly looking after by her husband. Learned trial court decided the matter and dissolved the marriage between the parties and the respondent-husband was directed to pay alimony of Rs. 10 lakhs to the appellant. The wifeappellant was constrained from interfering with the custody of the son. Thereafter, the appellant vacated the premises occupied by her. Hence, the present appeals.