PREM CHAND PANDEY Vs. SAVITRI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment disposes of these appeals.

(2.) In First Appeal No. 358 of 1996 the husband has questioned the validity of the order dated 8-7-1996 passed by Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra, Family Judge, Allahabad in Matrimonial Petition No. 361 of 1991 allowing the petition of the wife filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of desertion by the husband and granting a decree of Rs. 12,000.00 towards price of the scooter and Rs. 500.00 as alimony per month.The wife, being not satisfied with that part of the order refusing to grant a decree in her favour in respect of other properties claimed by her, has filed First Appeal No. 337 of 1996 for setting aside the order to that extent.

(3.) Matrimonial petition No. 6 of 1991 was filed by the wife under Section 13 of the Act alleging, inter alia, that her marriage was settled by negotiations of the parents of both sides during which served demand of dowry were made by her husband and his other family members; that as her parents wanted to discharge their liabilities of her marriage at the earliest, they any how agreed to fulfil the demands made and spent more than Rs. 80,000.00 in the marriage and also gave several articles, ornaments and valuables (cash and kind) and her marriage was solemnized according to Hindu Vedic rites on 6-5-1987 at Allahabad; that Vidai took place on 7-5-1987 and she went to reside at the residence of her husband where she lived upto 21-6-1987; that she found her husband and his other family members greedy who made a further demand of colour T. V. Refrigerator and some other ornaments besides a cash of Rupees 10,000/-; that her father any how managed and gave Rs. 10,000.00 in the first week of June, 1987 but could not fulfil other demands; when her parents could not fulfil the said further demand her husband and his other family members started torturing her of the pretext or the other, treated her with physical and mental cruelty including mercilessly beating; that her husband and his other family members did not agree for her Vidai from their residence but on the repeated requests of her father they anyhow agreed and on 21-6-1987 she returned to her Maika along with her father only with a suitcase containing few clothes of daily use; that her husband has kept all the articles, ornaments and valuables (cash and kind described in Schedule A, B. and C) which were given at or about the time of marriage as its consideration; that repeated attempts for her Vidai from Maika were made by her parents but her husband and his other members of the family did not agree to keep her as Bahu of their family until and unless further demands are fulfilled; that she later gathered that her husband has got illicit relations with a lady residing in the District Gaya of the State of Bihar and that he had married her only for satisfaction of the members of his family and to extract heavy amount and other valuables from her parents; that despite repeated requests her husband did not agree for her maintenance although he is working as a clerk in Civil Court, Allahabad; that the treatment of the husband has caused a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be not fit and proper for her to live with her husband, who has also deserted her for a continuous period of more than two years; thus she is entitled to get her marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and a decree for the return of the articles described in schedules A, B and C.