ANIL KUMAR Vs. SAROJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.1998, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sonepat, who, dismissed the petition of the petitioner-appellant, filed under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) SHRI Anil Kumar, appellant field a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent alleging therein that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in village Rukhi Tehsil Gohana on 22.11.1992, according to Hindu rites. After the marriage, the respondent came to the house of the petitioner at village Rukhi District Sonepat and the parties to the marriage co-habited with each other. After a stay of 2 days, the respondent returned to the house of her parents and stayed there for four months. Again the respondent came to the house of the appellant and stayed there for two months. The respondent gave birth to a female child on 2.6.1993 in City Hospital, Sonepat. Baby was born by way of normal delivery. It is alleged by the appellant that respondent conceived the child in the month of September, 1992 and, therefore, the child was conceived much before the date of the marriage. Respondent at the time of the marriage was pRegulation nt by some person other than the appellant. The respondent went to the house of her parents after the delivery of the child. The respondent took Rs. 20,000/- in cash, gold and silver jewellery and her dresses i.e. 8 saries and 20 suits, in the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner took a Panchayat, consisting of Shri Attar Singh, Narain Singh and Kamal Singh, to the house of the father of the respondent in June 1993. The Panchayat dissolved the marriage on the ground that respondent was pRegulation nt by some person other than the appellant. Now the respondent has started claiming again that she is the wife of the appellant. It was further averred by the petitioner that when respondent was living with him at his house she used to misbehave with him. Her behaviour was cruel towards him and his family members and when the petitioner objected against the conduct of the respondent, the latter threatened to commit suicide. So much so the respondent even gave the threat that she would implicate the petitioner-appellant in a false case of dowry. The respondent started humiliating the petitioner and his family members and it was not safe for the appellant to keep the respondent with him any more. Respondent has falsely filed a complaint against the appellant and his family members in the police-station and all these acts allegedly committed by the respondent, constituted the cruelty.

(3.) THE appellant filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the respondent in which he reiterated the allegations made in the petition by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-