VINOD KUMAR GAMBHIR Vs. VEENA GAMBHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Kumar Gambhir (husband) has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.1995 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon who dismissed his petition under Section 13 of th Hindu Marriage Act (for short "the Act") which was filed on 22.9.1992.

(2.) IT may also be stated here that the appellant Vinod Kumar had also made an alternative prayer in the said petition for the grant of a decree for judicial separation. It was, inter alia, pleaded by the petitioner that he was married with respondent Veena Gambhir according to Hindu rites on 6.11.1983. After the marriage, the parties resided together as husband and wife and they cohabited with each other as such. Out of this wedlock a male child was born by the name of Amit Gambhir in the month of October, 1985 who is now in the custody of his mother Veena Gambhir. It was also pleaded by the appellant that the respondent lived with him upto December, 1985 and thereafter she left the matrimonial home. It was alleged by the appellant that the respondent was under the influence of her parents and she wanted that the appellant should live as 'Ghar Jawai' with her parents. She deserted the petitioner without any sufficient cause. Giving instances of cruelty, it was pleaded by the husband that on 1.8.1986, two persons were deputed by the respondent who kidnapped him to the Grindlays Bank and threatened him to obey the orders of the parents of the respondents. They also threatened the petitioner that they will get him suspended with the help of a Union Minister. They also threatened that the petitioner will be got involved in criminal cases. Political pressure was also exercised by the respondent. The petitioner persuaded the respondent not to depute such type of persons, but to no effect. So much so, the petitioner also filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act in the month of September 1987 against the respondent which was dismissed by the trial court. Appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the High Court. That petition was, according to the petitioner, not pursued properly by him with the hope that a good sense may prevail on the respondent with the passage of time, but to no effect. On 13.4.1990, the petitioner was involved by the respondent in a false case under sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Police Station City, Gurgaon. The petitioner was arrested, handcuffed and was taken on foot from the Police Station to the court through the market. He was released on bail and as a result of this arrest, the reputation of the petitioner was badly damaged. The respondent again made a report on 13.4.1990 in the Police Station City Gurgaon that she had been beaten by the petitioner with iron rod. The police directed the respondent to get herself medically examined by the Doctors of the Government Hospital but she refused to do so as the allegations of beating made by her were false to the knowledge of the respondent.

(3.) THE third instance of cruelty pleaded by the appellant is that the respondent did not allow him to see his minor child Amit Gambhir and this had also caused mental tension to him. So much so, the respondent has asked the petitioner several times to return her dowry articles but in fact there was no dowry given to the petitioner at the time of marriage. With these broad allegations, the appellant made a prayer for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce and in the alternative prayed for passing of a decree under Section 10 of the Act for judicial separation.