RASHMEET KAUR Vs. SARDAR PUSHPENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1984) are directed against common judgement dated 18.10.2016 and decree dated 02.11.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur in Matrimonial Petition No. 445 of 2011 (Sardar Pushpendra Singh Vs. Smt. Rashmeet Kaur) under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1955) filed by Plaintiff-Respondent i.e. husband for divorce, which has been decreed and counter claim raised by Defendant-respondent under Section 9 read with Section 23A of Act, 1955 in above mentioned Matrimonial Petition has been dismissed. Consequently, defendant-respondent has filed two First Appeals detailed above.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for Appellant and Mr. R. K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Miss. Deba Siddiqui, learned counsel representing respondent.

(3.) From record it transpires that Plaintiff-Respondent, Sardar Pushpendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) instituted Matrimonial Case No. 445 of 2011 under Section 13(1) (i-a) of Act, 1955 vide plaint dated 18.04.2011. According to plaint allegations, marriage of parties was solemnized on 17.12.2007 in accordance with Sikh Rites and Customs at Anoop Shahar, District-Saharanpur; Plaintiff is the only child of his parent, as such Plaintiff and Appellant were both extremely loved by family members of appellant; Appellant was not permitted to do any household job; Plaintiff is a Computer Engineer and employed in a Firm at Bombay; after marriage Plaintiff took Appellant alongwith him to Bombay; he used to leave his house early morning and return home late in the evening; Appellant remained alone at home from morning till evening; Appellant has very irritating character and used to indulge in scuffle on trivial issues and further refused to cook food for herself and Plaintiff; in spite of repeated attempts made by Plaintiff to normalize Appellant, she refused to accede to the request of Plaintiff and continued with her old conduct; he persuaded Appellant to mend her ways as in a costly City like Bombay, he cannot bear the expenses of eating outside everyday; he tried to convince Appellant that things have to be managed intelligently; On this, Appellant used to quarrel with Plaintiff on account of which Plaintiff started living in tension; aforesaid occurrence was alleged to have taken place in February, 2008; While Appellant stayed at Saharanpur, her conduct towards Plaintiff and his parents was unbecoming of an ideal daughter-in-law-wife; Plaintiff withstood behaviour of Appellant, though it was irritating and caused inconvenience; in spite of solace given by parents of Plaintiff that slowly and gradually things will normalize, there was no change in the conduct and behaviour of Appellant; when Plaintiff complained about behaviour of Appellant to his in-laws, no heed was paid by them and same was procrastinated; when Plaintiff lost all his patience on account of irritating conduct of Appellant, he decided to return to Saharanpur on 24.02.2008; On this, Appellant informed her parents on account of which Jatan (brother-in-law of Plaintiff) came at Nizammuddin Raiway Station and accompanied Plaintiff to Saharanpur. Parents of Appellant also came to Saharanpur on 24.02.2008; Plaintiff duly complained about irritating conduct of Respondent on which parents of Appellant apologized on behalf of Appellant and further assured that they will persuade respondent to reform herself; on 25.02.2008, Appellant and her parents left house of Plaintiff and also took away clothes and jewellary belong to Appellant on the assurance that Appellant shall return to Saharanpur after sometime and thereafter on account of changed temperament she be sent to Bombay; subsequently, parents of Plaintiff received a phone call from Appellant that she does not wish to live with Plaintiff and therefore, it is not desirable for Appellant to reside with Plaintiff; she does not want to go to Bombay and reside with Plaintiff as she is happy without Plaintiff; Family members of Plaintiff repeatedly explained to Appellant to improve her ways and further requested their relatives to persuade upon Appellant to discharge her spousal obligations and co-habit with Plaintiff; however, aforesaid attempt went in vain as a result whereof Plaintiff started suffering from mental agony on account of aforesaid behaviour of Appellant; On 14.11.2010, a false F.I.R. was lodged against Plaintiff and his family members at Police Station-Kotwali, District Pilibhit on account of which father of Plaintiff was arrested resulting in humiliation and insult in society; Father of Plaintiff had to apply for bail even though no dowry was demanded at the time of marriage; aforesaid F.I.R. was lodged to create undue pressure upon Plaintiff and his family members; subsequently, sisters of father of Plaintiff filed separate affidavits before Police at Police Station, Pilibhit that no dowry was demanded in marriage, and same was solemnized between parties who knew each other; on account of false F.I.R. lodged by father of Appellant, Plaintiff faced physical, mental cruelty and pain and as such, it was impossible to co-habit with Appellant as husband and wife; In criminal case lodged by father of Appellant, three sisters of father of Appellant filed their affidavits before Investigating Officer that marriage between Appellant and Plaintiff was solemnized without any dowry; on account of criminal proceedings initiated by father of Appellant against Plaintiff and his family members, they have suffered physical and mental cruelty; feeling aggrieved by criminal proceedings initiated by father of Appellant, Plaintiff and his family members approached this Court, wherein vide order dated 22.02.2011 matter was referred to mediation but same failed as father of Appellant refused to negotiate; and in spite of repeated requests made by Plaintiff requesting Appellant to reside with him, no heed was paid by Appellant. On aforesaid factual premise, it was contended that decree of divorce be granted.