SANJEEVA KUMAR Vs. SUSHMA MAURYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-husband challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.05.2013 rendered by the learned Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Case No.86 of 2008 (Sanjeeva Kumar v. Smt. Sushma Maurya), whereby the said Court has dismissed the petition moved by the petitioner-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act').

(2.) The facts of the case are that the parties to the matrimony were married on 28.10.2001 as per Hindu rituals. Both are Government Servants. Appellant is at present posted on the post of Fire Officer at Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and the respondent is posted as Assistant in L.I.C., Branch Office, Cannaught Place, Chakrata, Dehradun. Only after few days of marriage the disputed erupted between the parties on the issue of employment of respondent-wife. The respondent was not cooking food and would deprive her husband from his conjugal rights under influence of her parents. She also started to pressurize the appellant to live separately, i.e. separate from the joint family residence. Despite the defiant attitude shown by the respondent, all the love and respect was given to her by the appellant and his family members. He even got himself transferred at Dehradun from Haridwar and started to reside with the respondent by taking a house on rent. This house was only a few meters away from the house of parents of the respondent due to which the in-laws of the appellant kept on interfering regularly in the marital life of the appellant and ultimately the respondent-wife started living with her parents while the appellant stayed alone in a rented house. She even did not enquire about the welfare of appellant when he was posted at Mussoorie from 27.06.2003. There were no relations of husband and wife between the parties. The appellant was transferred to Rudraprayag and thereafter, at Kashipur and every time the respondent refused to accompany and reside with him. She also levelled allegations against the appellant of having illicit relationship with a widow and made false complaints to the higher officers of the appellant which were dismissed by the concerned officers finding no veracity therein. No child is born out of the wedlock.

(3.) The wife appeared before the Court below, filed her written statement 55B, and denied most of the allegations made against her in the divorce petition. According to her the marriage was solemnized at Dehradun in which her parents spent more than their capacity and on the demand of appellant, a Maruti Car was given to him by getting it financed just two days before the marriage. Soon after the marriage, the parents of appellant started to poke fun at her for bringing less dowry. Nevertheless, she continued to bear all this to save her matrimonial life. In June, 1999 she gave an application for her transfer to Dehradun from Haridwar and she was posted as such in December, 2001. They both took a house on rent at Rajpur Road, Dehradun but the appellant on the pretext of house being small left the house with the assurance that he would find a new house. Then she searched another house which was only at a distance of 1 k.m. from her office where they both started to live as husband and wife. After some time the parents of appellant came at Dehradun and started to taunt, abuse and even beat her for their demand of dowry. When she showed incapacity of her parents to give dowry, she was thrown out of the house, as a result of which she started residing at her parents' house. She also went to the appellant's place of service at Mussoorie regularly. In the year 2003, the appellant wrote a letter to her that she need not come to Mussoorie as he will give her a notice for divorce soon on which she gave him a sum of Rs.50,000/- from her father and then he agreed to keep her with him. In December, 2003, she also got herself transferred at Mussoorie and began to stay with the appellant in a rented house. When the appellant was transferred to Rudraprayag and thereafter, to Kashipur, she could not accompany him due to non-availability of Government accommodation. In December, 2006, the appellant came to Mussoorie and told her that he has become the F.S.O. and would solemnize another marriage where a dowry of Rs.10 lakh is on offer, hence, she need not come to Kashipur. On being worried by his behaviour, she moved an application on 26.02.2007 before the Women Helpline on which the parties were called for counseling on 07.03.2007. Thereafter, she went to Kashipur in September, 2007 and then on several occasions till the month of July, 2008 and she spent her married life with the appellant at Kashipur. On 14.08.2008, after staying for some days at Kashipur, she returned to Dehradun and got information that the appellant has taken ex-parte divorce from her from the Court at Haridwar. Then she moved a restoration application in that case through her advocate, which was allowed and the case was restored.