SUNITA Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The wife is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.1.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby in a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') by the husband, decree of divorce has been passed in his favour on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(2.) Briefly, the facts, as are evident from the impugned order, are that marriage of the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 5.5.1992 at village Thurana, District Hissar. After the marriage, the parties cohabited with each other, but no child was born out of the wedlock. The case set up by the Respondent-husband was that the Appellant-wife treated him with cruelty from the very beginning. Her behavior used to hurt the feelings of the husband as well as his family members. After the marriage, the Appellant lived with the Respondent in his village Alipura for about a week and then she left in the company of her brother and did not turn up for about six months, in spite of various messages sent to her. The Appellant was stated to be under the influence of one Swami Krishnanand Ji of Shri Deeptanand Kanya Gurukul Ghirai. A panchayat was convened prior to Diwali festival, however, the Appellant flatly refused to join the company of the Respondent and stated that she would come only after the festival of Diwali in 1992. When she came back after Diwali festival, she stayed with the Respondent only for about a week, but even during this period she was proved to be a nuisance as she used to pick up quarrels even on petty matters. There was no cohabitation during this period. She insisted that the Respondent should live separate from his family or live in Gurukul premises. She again left the matrimonial home after about a week. As the Appellant did not join the company of the Respondent for more than two years thereafter despite repeated requests and had made up her mind to divorce him she brought a panchayat in the month of January. 1997 at village Alipura. The local panchayat also joined with them to settle the dispute between the parties. As agreed upon before the Panchayat, all the dowry articles were returned and a cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the Appellant as permanent alimony, but in spite of that, things did not settle down. As the effort of the Appellant was merely to harass and humiliate the Respondent and his family members, she moved a complaint before Senior Superintendent of Police, Hissar on 21.12.1998 under Section 498-A, IPC. On investigation, the complaint was found to be false. Thereafter, other petitions under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure and 494/120, IPC were filed, which were followed by a petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. With these pleaded facts, the Respondent filed petition for divorce on 30.8.2006.

(3.) The Appellant in her written statement while raising preliminary objections, refuted all the allegations. She stated that she never treated the Respondent with physical or mental cruelty. All the allegations levelled in the petition were false and defamatory. In fact, she is an educated lady having qualification of M.A., B. Ed. She cannot be under the influence of any person as is sought to be alleged. She lost her father about 30 years back and had only one brother. She never intended to live in the company of Swami Krishnanand Ji, as alleged. The family members of the Respondent were never treated with cruelty. Co-habitation was never refused. Shri Deeptanand Kanya Gurukul Ghirai was set up only in the year 2000, hence, there was no question of her being under the influence of Swami Krishnanand Ji before that. In fact, she was maltreated by the Respondent and turned out of the matrimonial home on 20.1.1997, as the demand of the Respondent was for a Maruti car and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. The Respondent had, in fact, contracted second marriage on 18.6.1998 with one Sushma. It was submitted that the Appellant filed a complaint in the court, in which the Respondent and his family members were facing trial after being summoned. She was compelled to file various cases, which were based on correct facts. The prayer was for dismissal of the petition for divorce.