VISHAL GUPTA Vs. SMT. ARTI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant /original petitioner has filed this first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 being partially dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 26/10/2015 passed by Fourth Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.189- A/2012, by which the trial Court has ordered to the appellant to pay Rs.2,50,000/- in lieu of her stridhan and to pay an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- as permanent alimony to the respondent, though the petition filed by the appellant-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and a decree for divorce has been granted in favour of the appellant and against the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty committed by the respondent.

(2.) Undisputedly, the marriage between the parties had solemnized on 7.3.2011 at Panagar, district Jabalpur. It would be significant to mention here that the respondent had separately filed an Appeal No.1067/15 against the above mentioned decree of divorce, but the same was dismissed on 23/2/2017 due to want of prosecution, as none had appeared on that day.

(3.) The appellant, as petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on pleadings that after one month from the marriage, appellant was appointed in service of M.P. Electricity Board on contract basis. For service, the petitioner lived at distant places like Neemach, Sujalpur and Mandsaur, thus, he remained unable to keep his wife with him at work places. Thus, respondent lived with his parents at Nainpur and in the meanwhile the appellant used to come to his parents' house after taking leave. After marriage the respondent was not willing to live with parents of the husband and she was also desirous that all the earnings of the husband be given to her and nothing should be given to his parents. She was habitual of quarrelling on trivial issues and committed rude behaviour with her husband and his parents and threatened them and harassed mentally by giving threatening to implicate them in criminal cases. Respondent told to the husband that he is a black coloured man and she had married with him only due to pressure of her parents.