LAWS(ALL)-2010-1-4

POORNIMA MISRA Vs. SUNIL MISRA

Decided On January 18, 2010
POORNIMA MISRA Appellant
V/S
SUNIL MISRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) These appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 6.1.2009 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short it has been referred to as 'Act') was rejected and the Suit of the respondent-plaintiff under Section 13 of the Act was decreed.

(3.) In short, the facts, as comes out from the record, are that the marriage of Smt. Poornima Misra was solemnized with Sunil Misra (respondent) on 29.1.2001 according to Hindu Vedic Rites at Lucknow. After the marriage, the wife performed all marital obligation as wife and gave due respect to the in-laws. In the marriage, the appellant's father gave valuable gifts and jewellery including one Maruti Car. But their in-laws were demanding more dowry and started ill-treating the appellant. On account of the maltreatment of in-laws, the appellant was compelled to leave her matrimonial house. When the appellant was living with her parents, the husband filed a Suit under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. After expiry of one year, the said Suit was withdrawn and a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Act on the ground of cruelty, was moved. In this petition, the respondent also averred that the appellant pressurized the respondent to live separately from her parents and started neglecting the parents. The appellant also terminated the pregnancy to get herself free from the marital obligation. The application for divorce was contested by the appellant and the allegations were denied. The appellant- Poornima Misra moved an application for maintenance under Section 24 of the Act and also filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act. Both the petitions were contested by the respondent-husband by leading documentary evidence, such as, F.I.R., statement of witnesses and charge- sheet. The appellant in support of her assertions also adduced oral and documentary evidence.