NEELAM KUMARI Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Neelam Kumari has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment and decree dated 16-9-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, whereby the petition of the respondent-Gurnam Singh under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of the marriage was accepted.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 6-5-1987 at village Bharog, tehsil Naraingarh, district Ambala according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, the parties lived and cohabited together as husband and wife till March 1989. A male child was born from this wedlock. The respondent-Gurnam Singh filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of the marriage alleging therein that the behaviour of the appellant was always hostile towards him and his family members and she used to quarrel with him as also with his family members on one pretext or the other. She always used to say that the respondent should live separately from his parents. However, the respondent turned down her requests and told her that his parents were old and he was the only earning hand in the family. Despite this, the behaviour of the appellant did not change. It was further alleged by respondent that the parents of the appellant used to interfere in his family affairs and they always used to threaten him that either he should live separately from his parents otherwise they would take away the appellant from his house. Not only this, the appellant and her parents whenever they visited the house of the respondent insulted him. and his parents and even told him that he is like her shoe in the foot (PAIR KI JOGTI) and that he was no match for the appellant. In the month of July 1987, the appellant went to her parents against the wishes of the respondent. The marriage was simple but while leaving the appellant took with her all valuable clothes and jewellery including that of the respondent. However, when the respondent approached her to come and live with him as a good wife, she flatly refused. On persuation of some persons of brotherhood, the appellant came and lived with the respondent in the month of December 1987 but without change in her behaviour. She always treated the respondent in an inhuman manner and even refused to make two meals and it is the mother of the respondent who used to prepare the meals for the family. Thereafter in the month of March 1989, when the parents of the appellant visited the house of the respondent she went with them telling the respondent that she was going to her parents house for 4/5 days. She also took her jewellery and valuable clothes with her including that of the respondent. Thereafter, she never returned in spite of several visits by the respondent. The respondent even requested the appellant and her parents that the appellant was pregnant and his parents wanted that she should give birth to a child at his house. But her parents flatly refused to his request and openly declared that the appellant, would never come to his house and that now there was no relationship between them. The respondent visited the house of the appellant with his parents and some other persons of the brotherhood namely Bachana Ram and SomNath but the appellant flatly refused to come. Rather she filed a complaint on false and frivolous ground under Sections 498-A and 406 read with Section 34, IPC against respondent, his mother and brother. The appellant levelled false allegations in the complaint regarding demand of dowry and cash amounting to Rs. 10,000/- by the respondent and his parents. She also levelled false allegations that the respondent was a dead drunkard and after taking liquor, used to beat the appellant mercilessly and had thrown her out of the house many times. All these allegations were levelled by the appellant on false grounds knowing fully well that they were false. The respondent is a vegetarian and never took liquor. On these premises it is alleged that these acts of the appellant show that she has treated the respondent with cruelty which entitled him to a grant of divorce under Section 13 of the Act. Earlier also the respondent had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for grant of divorce but in those proceedings re-conciliation efforts were made and the appellant regretted her past behaviour and expressed her desire to join the matrimonial home. Resultantly, the said petition was withdrawn by the respondent and the appellant accompanied him to village Khanpur Majra. However, after a few days she started maltreating the respondent and started quarrelling with him on petty matters so much so she did not cook food for the respondent nor did she do any domestic work rather she started cooking her separate meals. There was no cohabitation between the parties and the appellant denied matrimonial obligations which caused mental agony to him. These acts also, it is alleged amount to cruelty on the part of the appellant. It is also alleged that the appellant was seen in the company of Karam Chand Sarpanch of the village and another person, who is resident of village Samleheri near Raipur Rani. She openly told the respondent that when she resided with the man for such a long time he could not do anything against them and now he could not do anything against her and Sarpanch Karam Chand. The appellant left her matrimonial home on 26-7-1995 without any rhyme and reason after abusing the respondent and his parents. She also took the child from the school and has not returned from her parental home despite requests and efforts made by the respondent and his parents. Therefore, it is alleged that the appellant has withdrawn from the matrimonial society of the respondent without any cause and excuse.

(3.) The appellant filed her written statement before the learned trial Court, in which the material aspects of marriage between the parties and birth of a son were admitted. The allegations as made in the petition with regard to cruelty and withdrawing from the society of the respondent, were denied. It was stated that the respondent had concealed the actual facts and as a matter of fact just after the marriage he and his relatives threatened and harassed the appellant for bringing insufficient dowry and started raising demands for more, besides other financial demands. When the parents of the appellant did not comply with the demands of the respondents relations, she was tortured and ultimately turned out of the matrimonial home in three clothes by giving severe beatings. The appellant was forced to file a petition in February 1990 as also a criminal case under Section" 406/498-A, IPC (FIR No. 39 dated 25-3-1990) was also registered. It is further stated that the appellant never interfered in the family matters of the respondent and they never threatered the respondent as alleged. All the allegations regarding conduct of the appellant were false and frivolous to the knowledge of the respondent. It is admitted that the respondent also filed a petition for divorce which was compromised and she went to live with the respondent along with her minor son. However, the behaviour of the respondent was the same and he started misbehaving with the appellant, besides torturing and harassing her. The appellant was again turned out in July 1994. Even during the stay of the appellant with the respondent, he did not provide her and the minor child with basic and ordinary facilities of life. It was the parents of the petitioner who used to pay tuition fee of the minor and had also been sending money for her maintenance and that of her son. The respondent and his relatives had snatched all the gold ornaments from her just after the marriage but again her parents gave a pair of gold earrings to her besides silver pajeb. The appellants parents also gave her clothes but all have been snatched by the respondent from her. The respondent had compromised the matter just to avoid payment of maintenance in the petition pending against him since 1990 and also to get rid of the criminal case against him. The appellant did not leave the matrimonial home and rather she was turned out when she was pregnant and she was treated shabbily and in an inhuman manner. In this view of the matter, it was stated that the petition be dismissed.