UTTAM SONI Vs. KIRAN SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.1.1995, passed by Additional District Judge, Sihora in Civil Suit No. 3A/94, allowing the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (henceforth, the 'Act') as filed by the respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner' as she was before the trial Court) on the ground of cruelty. It is not in dispute that the non-applicant-appellant Uttam Soni (hereinafter referred to as the 'non-applicant' as he was before the trial Court) and the petitioner were married to each other in accordance with the Hindu rites in the year 1984 at village Khitola, District Jabalpur. At the. time of filing of the petition, the parties were living at village Khitola within the jurisdiction of trial Court.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a petition under section 13 of the Act on the ground specified under clause (ia) of sub-section (1). It is alleged by the petitioner that after the solemnization of the marriage, non-applicant treated her with cruelty. The non-applicant used to harass her for or in connection with demand for dowry. The non-applicant used to demand Rs. 10,000/- by way of dowry. He used to consume liquor and under the effect of intoxication, he used to assault the petitioner. He repeatedly gave threats that he will remarry. It is also the case of the petitioner that she was turned out by the husband from her matrimonial home. Sincere attempts were made for conciliation but the non-applicant did not show any change in his behaviour. The last incident of beating occurred on 16.12.1993. Thereafter the petitioner started living with her father. It is alleged by the petitioner that the cruelty meted out to her is of such a nature as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it is harmful or injurious for her to live with the husband.

(3.) DURING trial, on the date of hearing the non-applicant did not appear before the trial Court, therefore, the case proceeded ex-parte against him and the petition was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 17.1.1995. This order of the trial Court is assailed by the non-applicant in this appeal. I have heard Shri S. Gautam, learned counsel for the non-applicant. None appeared for the petitioner at the time of final argument; therefore, the appeal proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner.