SARITA Vs. VIKAS KANAUJIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter refereed to as 'Act 1984'), challenging judgement and decree dated 20.12.2006, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Matrimonial Case No. 123 of 2003 (Dr. Vikas Kannaujia Vs. Smt. (Dr.) Sarita), under section 13 (I) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1955'), whereby Court below has decreed suit of plaintiff respondent and consequently, annulled marriage of parties from the date of judgement i.e. 20.12.2006.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for defendant-appellant, Mr. Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.P. Paul, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-respondent.

(3.) According to plaint allegations, marriage of plaintiff respondent, was solemnized with defendant-appellant on 20.2.2002 at Delhi in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage defendant-appellant came to her marital home i.e. house of plaintiff-respondent situate at Tope Khana Bazar, Meerut Cant, District Meerut. It is the case of plaintiff-respondent that consummation of marriage took place on the first night of defendant-appellant at her marital home. It is alleged by plaintiff-respondent that subsequently, relationship between the parties became strained as according to plaintiff-respondent, defendant-appellant refused to perform her marital obligations to the satisfaction of plaintiff-respondent. It was also alleged that defendant-appellant, misbehaved with mother of plaintiff-respondent, when she was requested to touch feet of elder relatives and obtain their blessings. On 22nd February, 2002, younger brother of defendant-appellant and her maternal aunt (mami) are alleged to have visited house of plaintiff-respondent for taking defendant-appellant to her parental home. According to plaintiff-respondent, behaviour of younger brother of defendant-appellant as well as her maternal aunt was neither friendly nor cordial and they started to allege complaint on behalf of defendant-appellant. Ultimately, they all left marital home of defendant-appellant and went to parental home of defendant-appellant at Delhi along with defendant-appellant. Plaintiff-respondent, brought defendant-respondent back to her marital home on 4.3.2002. In the evening of 4.3.2002, they both went to Udhampur (Jammu and Kashmir) where plaintiff was working as an eye surgeon at Kishan Lal Sharma Memorial, Rotary Eye Hospital Udhampur, However, according to plaintiff-respondent, behaviour of defendant-appellant with plaintiff respondent at Udampur was neither cheerful nor congenial. So much so, that according to plaintiff-respondent, though they were in cohabitation, yet there was no establishment of conjugal relations between the parties in their seven days of stay on account of cold and indifferent attitude of defendant-respondent. Accordingly, parties returned in the morning of 11.3.2002. The thirteenth day function (Terahi Ceremony) of elder brother of father of plaintiff-respondent was scheduled on 17.3.2002 as he expired on 10.3.2002.However, according to plaintiff-respondent, defendant appellant left her marital home in the evening of 17.3.2002, which conduct is unbecoming of a good daughter-in-law. Since then defendant-respondent is residing at her parental home. Repeated attempts are alleged to have been made by plaintiff-respondent to bring back defendant-appellant to her marital home but all went in vain. Plaintiff-respondent also filed a suit under section 9 of Act 1955, which was registered as Suit No. 598 of 2002 (Dr. Vikas Kannaujia Vs. Smt. Dr. Sarita) for restitution of conjugal rights. The defendant-appellant appeared in aforesaid suit and filed an application under section 24 of Act 1955 claiming interim maintenance and litigation expenses. According to plaintiff-respondent, inspite of initiation of above mentioned proceedings, defendant-appellant refused to reside along with plaintiff-respondent at her marital home, which is situate at Meerut. On the aforesaid factual premise, plaintiff-respondent alleged commission of 'cruelty' by defendant-appellant upon him and consequently prayed for grant of a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as contemplated under section 13 (1) (i-a) of Act 1955.