MAMTA DIXIT Vs. SHAILESH DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs First Appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1984') arising out of Judgment dated 23.12.2016 and decree dated 9.1.2017 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Suit No. 935 of 2011 (Smt. Mamta Dixit Vs. Sri Shailesh Dixit) dismissing suit of appellant for divorce filed on the ground of 'cruelty'.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Chandra Keshwar Singh, learned counsel for plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant'). In spite of revision of cause list, no one has appeared on behalf of defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant') even though name of Mr. Abhishek Tripathi is printed in the cause list as counsel for respondent.

(3.) Appellant instituted Suit No. 935 of 2011 (Smt. Mamta Dixit Vs. Sri Shailesh Dixit) for dissolution of marriage of parties solemnized on 21.2.1985. According to plaint allegations, marriage of parties was solemnized on 21.2.1985 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs at G.N.K. Inter College, Civil Lines, Kanpur Nagar; after marriage, appellant came to her matrimonial home situate at 104A/185 Rambagh, Kanpur Nagar and started discharging marital and spousal obligations; appellant belongs to a reputed brahmin family and her father was a renowned Advocate; sufficient dowry was given and marriage was solemnized with fan and fare; at the time of marriage, respondent was having degrees of M.Sc. and M.B.A.; he was employed as a Marketing Advisor at Bombay; Respondent used to come to Kanpur after month or two months and used to discharge his marital obligations; Appellant resided at her matrimonial home at Rambagh Kanpur Nagar upto the year 1989; in the aforesaid year, respondent was transferred to Delhi; on account of repeated request made by appellant, respondent took her to Delhi along with him; Upon continuous co-habitation with defedant at New Delhi, appellant came to know about the bad habits of respondent; She discovered that defendant is a drunkard, cruel and a man of loose character; defendant started committing cruelty upon appellant; Parties resided at Janta Flat, Dilshad Garden, Delhi; while parties were residing at above mentioned place, respondent for fulfilment of his lust for dowry uttered pinching and substandard words; in the garb of purchasing a nice flat at a good place, respondent pressurized appellant to get money from her parents; Appellant disclosed aforesaid fact to her parents' but, on account of poor financial condition, parents of appellant could not satisfy exorbitant demand of respondent; as a result, respondent became angry and started committing atrocities upon appellant in different ways; to save appellant from atrocities committed by respondent, parents of appellant gave a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to respondent for purchasing house with the condition that same shall be purchased in the name of appellant; however, by playing fraud and forgery, respondent purchased House No. 176D, Pocket J and K, Dilshad Garden, Delhi in his own name; in spite of aforesaid, there was no change in the conduct of respondent; his attitude and conduct towards appellant became more aggressive and pinching; appellant could not withstand atrocities committed by respondent and also could not withstand rude and agonising behaviour of respondent have she returned to her parental home; Some of the goods and dowry given to appellant at the time of her marriage were retained by parents of respondent and remaining goods and jewellery were retained by defendant; to resolve the stalemate, appellant sent a notice dated 16.10.2009 to respondent and his parents; upon receipt of aforesaid notice, compromise was entered into, between parties including parents of respondent and respondent agreed to give up his addiction; On this undertaking, appellant again went to Delhi and started residing with respondent; unfortunately, conduct of respondent remained the same and on account of resentment shown by appellant, respondent ousted appellant from his home in July 2010; With some difficulty, appellant came to her parental home; Appellant again sent a notice to respondent complaining about conduct of respondent; thereafter, appellant used good offices of her well-wishers to exert pressure upon respondent for return of her goods, dowry, stridhan and also amount given for purchase of flat; Appellant also demanded promise of good conduct from respondent; however, in response, respondent refused to return the goods demanded and further alleged to destroy appellant and her family members; respondent has not maintained any contact or co-habitation with appellant for the last one year nor has paid any amount towards her maintenance even though monthly income of appellant is Rs.50,000/-; Appellant has no independent source of income. Her father has already died; her widowed mother has no sufficient source of income, therefore, appellant is dependent upon her mother and mama (maternal uncle); Cause of action was alleged to have accrued first in July, 2005 on account of bad behaviour committed by respondent; thereafter, again in 2009, again in July 2010 when defendant ousted appellant from his home and ultimately in June 2011, when appellant refused to show good conduct and co-habit with appellant at Kanpur. On the aforesaid factual premise, appellant prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.