AMIT KUMAR @ LAKHPAT GOEL Vs. REKHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by Amit Kumar @ Lakhpat Goel (appellant) against the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.09.2012 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby the petition of the respondent-Rekha Rani under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('Act' for short) seeking divorce has been allowed.

(2.) Along with the appeal, CM No. 9368-CII of 2013 has been filed seeking condonation of 95 days delay in filing the appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant who has been engaged through the legal aid at considerable length.

(3.) The marriage between the parties was solemnized at village Babain, District Kurukshetra on 02.05.2004 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife at village Singhpura-Mohalla, Barara, District Ambala and cohabited with each other. However, they had no issue from their marriage. The respondent-Rekha Rani, who was petitioner before the District Court, Kurukshetra alleged that since it was the first marriage in the family, a huge amount was spent on the marriage. After marriage, when she went to her matrimonial home, all the cash and jewellery were taken by the mother of the appellant and other jewellery which was given to the family members of the appellant for the use of the the appellant was also kept by them. From the very first day of the marriage, the appellant and his family members started taunting the respondent for bringing insufficient dowry and the appellant even slapped the respondent. Thereafter, it became routine for the appellant to beat the respondent, which he did so on many occasions. Out of the jewellery of the respondent, four gold bangles were given to the sister of the appellant namely Rita. On provocation of Rita and her husband namely Parveen, the appellant used to abuse the respondent. On 22.07.2004, the appellant gave a very severe beating to the respondent and he raised a demand for a 'Splendor' motor cycle or money in lieu of the motor cycle. The brother of the appellant also threatened the respondent stating that earlier they had killed one lady in the family and she would also be killed in the same manner. The respondent was sent back to her parental home, where she conveyed the said demand to her father who gave her Rs. 60,000/- in cash which were handed over by her to the appellant. After some days, the appellant and his family members started beating the respondent and they also did not provide any food to her and confined her in a room. The respondent was not allowed to talk to her parents on telephone.