SEEMA Vs. SURENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Seema (wife) who was respondent in the trial Court, has filed the present F.A.O. and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.3.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad, who allowed the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') of Surender Kumar (now respondent before me), who was petitioner in the trial Court, vide which the marriage of the parties was dissolved by the trial Court. Not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the wife has come in the present appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Surender Kumar respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act and it was inter alia pleaded by him that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.1.1992 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Gurgaon. After the marriage, the parties lived as husband and wife and cohabited with each other. However, no child was born out of this wedlock. It is alleged by the husband that right from the very beginning of the marriage, the behaviour of the wife towards him and his family member was cruel, rude and indifferent without any rhyme or reason as she used to insult him by using filthy language in the presence of his relatives. She is a lady of high temperament. Elaborating the incident of cruelty it is alleged by the husband at the first instance that on 30.1.1992 some of his friends came to his house and the appellant was asked to serve tea to them, but she told that she was not their servant. After a week, when his sister came to their house, the appellant called her as bitch etc. and hurled filthy language. The second incident of cruelty alleged by the husband is that on 8.2.1992 when he went to attend a marriage at Gurgaon of some relative of the appellant some eatable fell on his clothes, due to which the appellant started hurling abuses by stating that he did not care about her status. Though he tried to pacify her but to no effect. Thereafter, he left the marriage party and returned to his house. On the next day, the appellant along with her father came to his house and assured that no such act would be repeated in future. The third incident of cruelty is dated 19.3.1992. According to the husband-respondent it was Holi festival, so he applied some Gulal on the face of the appellant but she did not relish it and called him Kutta and Kamina (dog and mean person). She also gave a slap on his face in the presence of several persons. These are the three incidents of cruelty pleaded by the husband.

(3.) NOTICE of the petition was given to the wife, who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. She took certain preliminary objections that the petition under Section 13 of the Act was not maintainable, that the husband has suppressed material facts; that he was estopped from filing the present petition which is not legally maintainable. On merits, the stand of the appellant-wife was that she never insulted the respondent and his family members and that she never used abusive language. She never showed any disrespect to the respondent and his family members. On the other hand, without any fault on her part she was assaulted by the respondent and his family members physically and she was also deprived of her ornaments and belongings because all the dowry articles were kept in possession by her mother-in-law under the lock and key. According to the appellant, she never misbehaved with the respondent and other respectables. She pleaded that her parents spent a huge amount on the marriage by giving gold ornaments of 200 grams, silver ornaments, valuable 50 sarees and woollen suits to all the close relatives of the respondent and all these items were chosen by the parents of the respondent. They were not satisfied with the dowry articles and for this reason they stated abusing the appellant and they made a demand of a car and motor cycle besides cash. According to the appellant, the real motive of the respondent to file the petition is to extract a big amount from her parents. The demand of dowry was also raised in the panchayat in the presence of Bishambar Dayal, R.K. Rao, and Rama Nand. So far as the respondent is concerned, he has no grouse or complaint against the appellant. Both of them were having good relations and better understanding as husband and wife but the situation has been created by the parents of the husband.