NAVODITA Vs. DINESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine will dispose of F. A. O. No. 19-M of 1991 and F. A. O. No. 20-M of 1991. Both these appeals have been preferred by the wife; one against order dismissing her petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty and desertion and second dismissing her petition under Section 27 of the said Act for return of dowry articles.

(2.) SHRIMATI Navodita is the appellant in both the appeals. The marriage between the parties took place at Kurukshetra on 7-6-1985. There is no child out of the wedlock. Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for dissolution of marriage was filed by the wife on 4-11-1987 on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion. In the petition, it was claimed by the wife that at the time of marriage, her parents spent a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/ -. As per the wishes of the husband and his parents, cash and dowry was given to their satisfaction. She has given the details of dowry articles in the petition, which were given at the time of the marriage. As per the case set up by her, her husband and his parents were not happy with the dowry which was given and they started abusing the wife and her parents for not bringing adequate dowry to their satisfaction. Husband wanted cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- in order to start business of plying bus and for this purpose, there was some correspondence with some owners of the buses who bad permits along with the buses but the wife and her parents expressed their inability to manage this demand made by the husband. She further claimed that the husband took Rs. 6,000/- on 23-10-1986 and Rs. 7000/- on 25-11-1986 by coming to Kurukshetra. She gave this amount from her account through cheques. Because of her failure to manage the huge amount which was demanded by her husband, she was maltreated by her husband and his parents. She stayed in the matrimonial home upto September, 1985. During this period the wife was treated with cruelty so as to compel her to bring the money for purchase of a bus. She was compelled to leave the matrimonial home in October, 1985 and she came to her parents at Kurukshetra. Her father took her to her matrimonial home and at that time he gave an assurance that he will manage a sum Rs. 50,ooq/- after selling his agricultural land and the husband could invest this amount in any manner. This effort also proved futile as she came back immediately. Thereafter, she was not allowed to take her Jewellery, clothes and other dowry articles including the gifts which were given at the lime of marriage. She took admission in Kurukshetra University and completed her M. A. as a regular student and during two years, when she was studying her husband did not care to take her back to her matrimonial home. This was with the intention to bring co-habitation permanently to an end without any reasonable cause. During this time, wife made several attempts for reconciliation but the husband did not permit her to join the matrimonial home. Wife thus claims that the husband is guilty of cruelty and desertion.

(3.) THE petition was contested by the husband who not only. denied the allegations made in the petition but also stated that the father of the wife suggested to him to leave his job and start the business of spare parts or. transport as she had sufficient funds with him, Since his father-in-law was a government servant working in Food Corporation of India, it was difficult for him to keep cash in bank and so he wanted the husband to start the business. He managed a shop at Bulandshahr for running the business of spare pans and wanted his son-in-law to see the shop in question so as to start the business. As per the direction of his father-in-law he saw the shop and suggested that instead of rushing the business of spare pans, business of transport is better whereas the investment in both the businesses would be about Rs. 2,00,000/ -. The husband, in the written statement, claimed that his father-in-law wanted him to do Benami business in his name as there was no male member in the family except his daughter. The scheme of business could not see light of the day because he was not willing to stay at Kurukshetra as was suggested by his parents. He also denied that he took sum of Rs. 6. 000/- on 28-10-1986 and Rs. 7,000/- on 25-11-1986. In his written statement, he explained that he went to Kurukshetra very often and on 28-10-1986 wife was in need of Rs. 6,000/- as she and her mother were ill. He was not carrying Rs. 6,000/-, with him and, therefore she gave a cheque of Rs. 6. 000/- to him which he withdrew from the bank and gave it to her. He also stated that in the month of July, 1985, he deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the name of his wife as security deposit for the purchase of Gypsy Jeep (Maruti ). The said amount was withdrawn by him later on and cheque of Rs. 10,700/-was got deposited in the bank account of his wife at Kurukshetra. He also claimed that the wife has condoned the acts of cruelty by joining his society at the time of marriage of his sister in June, 1986 where she remained upto the last week of July 1986. During this period she got treatment at Lady Harding Hospital, New Delhi. She also came to stay with him in the first week of October, 1986 when there was strike in Kurukshetra University and remained with him upto 27-11-1986. On 27-11-1986, she left with her brother in his absence with cash of Rs. 3. 730/- gold ornaments jewellery, letters written by her to him with an ulterior motive, on 24-12-1986 her cousin and two other persons came to his residence and asked for the articles which were written by her and look all the articles. He also claimed that he sent a telegram to her parents about her behaviour on 29-11-1986 but received no intimation. He and his father went to Kurukshetra to her parents who refused to send her back to her matrimonial home. They asked him to have some accommodation separate from his parents but he refused to oblige at that time. In the last week of January, 1987, he went lo Kurukshetra and asked his wife to come to him as he bad arranged separate accommodation but. she refused to join his society at Delhi without any reasonable excuse or just cause. In the written statement, he also made a reference to a petition filed by him under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights which at the lime of filing the petition by his wife, was pending in Delhi Courts.