MAMTA DUBEY Vs. RAJESH DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri C. B. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) THE instant first appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 4-12-2002 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow decreeing the Original suit No. 613 of 1998.

(3.) PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, Rajesh Dubey, who is the husband of the defendant-appellant, Smt. Mamta Dubey, filed Original Suit no. 613 of 1998 before the Family Court, lucknow under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" filed by the plaintiff-respondent for dissolution of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant by a decree of divorce on the allegations interalia, that the plaintiff and the defendant were married in accordance with the Hindu Vedic rites on 23-2-1993 at the residence of father of the respondent at Gorakhpur; that in the very first week after marriage, the defendant expressed her un-happiness over the way, the plaintiff interacted with his sisters and sisters-in-law and the suspicious nature of the respondent caused acute pain to the plaintiff but he was hopeful that she would gain her confidence and trust with the passage of time; that the insistence of the defendant to live separately from the parents of the plaintiff compelled the plaintiff to move into a flat allotted by his employers at 406 meenaxi 'b' Wing Gokuldham Goregaon, east Mumbai; that towards the end of April, 1993 the respondent became pregnant, she insisted upon aborting the child but however due to effective persuasion of the plaintiff and the advice of the Gynaecologist the defendant reluctantly agreed to go through the pregnancy and in the meantime, the defendant realising need for assistance during the pregnancy agreed that the plaintiff's parents should join them at their official residence; that in the month of May, 1993, the plaintiff's mother-in-law and two brothers-in-law visited the plaintiff's house and within a week of their departure, the father-in-law of the plaintiff reached Bombay to fetch defendant back to Gorakhpur alleging maltreatment of the defendant by the plaintiff and his parents and the defendant went back to Gorakhpur with her father in the third week of June 1993; that the defendant delivered a baby girl on 13-2-1994 at her parents' house in Gorakhpur and when the plaintiff reached Gorakhpur on 27-2-1994 after getting information about the birth of the child, the plaintiff learnt that his daughter was hospitalised on account of high fever coupled with convulsions and after the child was discharged on 3-3-1994, the Doctors attending on her had advised the defendant to take proper care of the child and not to neglect her; that the plaintiff intended to bring the defendant with him to mumbai along with the child but on insistence of her parents, the plaintiff agreed to leave her behind and returned to Mumbai on 26-3-1994; that the plaintiff again went to Gorakhpur in June 1994 and brought the defendant along with him to Mumbai on 20-6-1994; that after defendant's return to mumbai, her suspicious nature towards the plaintiff had become more intense and she suspected that the plaintiff was having adulterous affairs with his colleagues in the office and the defendant started indulging in the habit of making phone calls in the office of the plaintiff to find out whether the plaintiff was having adulterous affairs with colleagues; that on one occasion the defendant went to the residence of one of the colleagues of the plaintiff, Ms. Deepti Rawal and accused her of having adulterous relationship with the plaintiff; that on 18-1-1995 defendant left for Gorakhpur accompanied by her youngest brother after accusing the plaintiff that he is living in adultery with his colleagues; that the plaintiff was transferred from Mumbai Office to the Head Office at lucknow on 24-6-1995; that the defendant came to Lucknow in mid August, 1995 for regular medical check up the daughter whose condition had deteriorated considerably since she had left Mumbai for gorakhpur in January, 1995; that upon coming to know of the condition of his ailing daughter, the plaintiff took his daughter to S. G. P. G. I, Lucknow for treatment, however, before the medical investigations could be completed, the daughter of the plaintiff passed away on 2-9-1995; that the death of the daughter left the petitioner totally heart broken because the daughter had been utterly neglected by the defendant while staying at Gorakhpur from January, 1995 to mid August, 1995 where the defendant had stayed totally against the wishes of the plaintiff; that the defendant and her parents accused the plaintiff and his parents of having killed the daughter which resulted in great cruelty to the plaintiff; that in February, 1996, the defendant again conceived, however, the defendant continued to accuse the plaintiff of having illicit relationship with another girl; that the second child was born on 22-9-1996 and the defendant left the plaintiff's home on 16-11-1996 on the pretext of visiting her father at Gorakhpur and returned on 25-11-1996 informing the plaintiff that she was leaving for Gorakhpur to complete her studies there and the defendant finally left lucknow on 26-11-1996 along with her two month old child; that the second child of the plaintiff also passed away on 14-6-1997 after remaining in coma for eight days in Gorakhpur medical College and when the plaintiff learnt about the illness of his child he immediately rushed to Gorakhpur on 8-6-1997 but only to see his child dead; that the death of the second child of the plaintiff left him totally shattered as it was result of persistent neglect on the part of the defendant which had resulted in the death of both the children while she was residing at Gorakhpur; that the defendant accused the plaintiff of killing the child; that the conduct of the defendant comprising making phone calls to the seniors of the plaintiff in the office as well as at their residence levelling all kinds of frivolous and baseless allegations regarding the character of the plaintiff alleging him to be an adulterous man caused tremendous mental agony to the plaintiff and the behaviour of the defendant constituted cruelty towards the plaintiff who was left with no alternative but to file the suit for divorce.