KAVITA VERMA Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is by the appellant-wife against the Judgment dated 28th January, 2011 in a civil case No. 48/08 (HMA) of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Datia (M. P. ), granting a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty to the respondent No. 1-husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2.) The facts are quite simple. In the petition, the petitioner-husband states that he fell in love and both of them (appellant and respondent No. 1) decided to get tied in matrimonial relationship. Accordingly, their marriage was performed against the wishes of their parents on 26th June 2002 in Arya Samaj Temple at Gwalior in the presence of witnesses, namely, Devenrda Pansari (respondent No. 2) and one Rajendra. After sometime, the parents of the couple consented to their decision. The marriage was duly consummated and one son, namely, Tanish was born out of their wedlock. It is stated that at the time of marriage, her husband was unemployed and she was in Government Job. It is the case of the respondent No. 1/husband that after marriage Devendra Pansari (respondent No. 2) who was his friend usually went to meet Smt. Kavita in his absence. When he took an objection on frequent visit of Devendra in his absence, appellant-wife was enraged and insulted her husbandpetitioner Narendra. She sometimes abused and threatened him to receive share in the property of his father. She also insulted his parents. In such a situation, father of the respondent No. 1-husband decided to separate both husband and wife from them. He arranged money for their separate residence in the house of Durga Prasad Soni. Even then, the appellant-wife was not satisfied. It is stated by him that his wife began to act in a cruel manner towards him, sometimes even using physical violence. He tolerated this, hoping that her conduct would improve. Ultimately, she expelled her husband-respondent No. 1. She continued her daily contacts with Devendra Pansari. In order to implicate her husband, the FIR was also lodged by her for demand of dowry at Police Station Bhander against her husband and his relations. In the bail proceedings before criminal court, she vehemently opposed grant of bail to their inlaws. Simultaneously, a maintenance proceeding for the son was also initiated against the respondent No. 1- husband before the Criminal Court. Under these circumstances, the respondent No. 1 presented the petition praying for divorce on the ground of cruelty as well as adultery.

(3.) The respondent-wife accepted the fact of marriage and a birth of her son out of their wedlock. However, she denied allegation of adultery i. e. extra-marital relations with Devendra Pansari as well as the mental and physical cruelty to her husband and his family members. It is specifically stated by her that father of her husband is well renowned Advocate in Criminal law of the local vicinity and the respondent No. 1 is also a registered practitioner Advocate who used to appear in the courts apart from doing the business of Jewellery business in the name and style of "Girija Jewellers. " It is admitted that at present she is working as a teacher on contract basis "Samvida Shikshak" in Government School and earning monthly salary. However, she specifically denied the extra-marital relations with Devendra Pansari and of committing any kind of cruelty against her husband. She admitted that she lodged FIR under Section 498-A of I. P. C. on which a criminal case is also pending before the court of law. She also admitted to have filed a petition for maintenance of her infant son under Section 125 Cr. P. C.