NAVAL KISHORE SOMANI Vs. POONAM SOMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal before us raises one important point amongst others. The important point that arises before us is :

(2.) This point, along with others on facts, arises in the present appeal in the following circumstances :-

(3.) Respondent-wife denied all the allegations against her. It was stated by her that during the honeymoon trip calls from sister and father of the petitioner were received quite often in Nepal calling upon the petitioner to return immediately to Secunderabad for business purpose. She was completely co-operative in the trip. She was attending to all household work at her matrimonial house with care. She stated that though she was never treated with dignity by the mother-in-law and though she was abused, she as a dutiful wife continued to do all the household work. The mother-in-law then started beating and abusing her. Thus apart from mental cruelty she was victim of physical cruelty also. She became pregnant in August, 1990. Though this was a matter of joy, the petitioner and members of his family surprisingly became quite unhappy with this news. The monther-in-law was all the while desirous of bringing a new daughter-in-law, who would bring large dowry and money in the family. As respondent was not in a position to bring any such dowry, she was being coerced to agree for divorce. When she became pregnant, she was taken to some doctor on pretext of being got examined. When taken to doctor, a plan was hatched to carry out abortion. She refused to get such abortion done. Her staunch opposition to the abortion has been given colour as a behaviour of psychic nature. In December she was beaten very severely by the petitioner causing injury to her hand. She felt danger to her life and went to a nearby house of one Smt. Kishore. When she tried to return to matrimonial house, she was not given entry. She was forced to go to her relative and she then sought help of 'Mahila Dakshata Samithi'. Allegations against Samithi are false. The Samithi made efforts to bring about reconciliation. She claimed that she was very much desirous of matrimonial life. She has given birth to a male child on 2nd May, 1991. It is alleged that as the petitioner was refusing to admit her to matrimonial house, she filed a case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. for the cruelty suffered by her. In short, it is the contention of respondent that it is the petitioner, who has treated the respondent with cruelty and he is not allowing her to resume cohabitation. It is alleged that petitioner cannot take advantage of his own wrong. He wants to get rid of respondent in some manner or other.