BRAHAM PARKASH Vs. MUKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS FAO has been filed by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak, granting a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty in favour of Mukesh -wife, against her husband, Braham Prakash.

(2.) ON 16.1.1997, Smt. Mukesh, wife, filed a divorce petition No.2 of 1997, under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Karnal, which was returned due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, the wife filed the present petition under section 13 of the Act at Rohtak, on the grounds that the marriage betweenFAO No.313 -M of 2009 -2 - the parties was solemnized on 18.6.1992, as per Hindu rites. It is alleged in the petition that the marriage could not be consummated as the husband was impotent and incapable of having intercourse with the wife. No child was born out of this wedlock. It is alleged that the husband is addicted to intoxicants and drugs. The wife was shunted out of the house by the husband on 1.9.1995, without any reason. The husband had also broken TV, mirror of the dressing table and other household articles. The wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was dismissed as withdrawn on account of compromise. The wife alleged that on 17.7.2001, she was transferred from Nathupur to Village Kamla, District Karnal, on her request, as it was very difficult to live in the company of the husband and her life became hell. On 17.7.2001, the husband reached at her place of posting from where she was to be relieved. The husband created a great drama and insulted and humiliated the petitioner -wife in the presence of the staff members. The respondent -husband also gave beatings to the wife on that day. Since then, she is stated to be residing with her parents. Another instance quoted by the wife is that on 16.12.2001, the marriage of the younger sister of the petitioner was held and the respondent husband was invited there for the purpose of reconciliation. The respondent came there and also played a drama at the house of the wife in the presence of the relatives and respectables of the locality. The husband again insulted and abused the wife including her parents at the time of the marriage but the petitioner remained silent. After insulting the entire family of the wife, the husband left the house on the same day without taking dinner in the marriage of the sister of the wife. Another example of cruelty quoted by the wife is of 25.12.2001, when the wife went to the house of the respondent toFAO No.313 -M of 2009 -3 - collect her clothing and other articles lying in her in -laws' house. It is alleged that when the wife entered the house the husband started shouting there and abused the wife and her parents after seeing her there. When the husband came to note that she wanted to take her valuable articles and daily use articles, the husband pushed her out of the house. She was not even allowed to take a glass of water or tea there and he humiliated the wife in the presence of the neighbours. -4 -

(3.) THE husband contested the petition denying all the allegations. The husbands alleged that the allegations of impotency are afterthought and were raised for the first time in this petition filed on 25.7.2005. In the earlier divorce petition, and petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., no such allegation was there. Even in written statement to HMA case No.49 of 1996 filed on 24.7.1996 by the husband, no such allegation was there. The husband alleged that the wife is habitual of filing false petitions. It was submitted that in the year 1993, the wife got pregnant but unfortunately, there was a miscarriage due to some health problem. She was medically treated from Dr. Mrs. Uma Pant, and Rita Vaish, in the year 1993 -94 and from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, in the year 1998. It is stated that in the earlier petitions, the wife had admitted that they cohabited with each other as husband and wife and the marriage was consummated. The allegations of taking of drugs and intoxicants were denied. It is alleged that the wife and her sister were married with the husband (appellant in this case) and his brother, Suresh Chand, respectively, at the same time and place. The wife at the time of marriage was 10+2. Thereafter, she did her B.A. and J.B.T. Course, and joined the service as a teacher. It is further pleaded that the husband is a Government servant, working as Section Officer in the Ministry of Communications, New Delhi.