CHAMELI DEVI Vs. JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 6.5.2011 passed by the District Judge, Mansa, whereby the petition filed by Chameli Devi, appellant seeking dissolution of marriage of parties by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "HMA") has been dismissed. The appellant was married with respondent on 31.5.2009 at Bareta Mandi as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the wedlock of the parties. As per averments of the appellant, the attitude of the respondent was cruel towards her from the first day of the marriage. He started compelling her to bring more dowry from her parents. He is habitual drunkard and used to beat her under the influence of liquor. When she expressed her inability to meet his demand of Rs. 50,000/-, she was turned out of the matrimonial home 13 months prior to the institution of the petition. The parents of the appellant convened a panchayat for her rehabilitation in the matrimonial home but the respondent refused to resume cohabitation until he was paid Rs. 50000/-. She has been deserted by the respondent without any reasonable cause due to which she has suffered mental and physical torture.

(2.) In reply, the respondent controverted the allegations of the petition and raised preliminary objections challenging the locus standi of the appellant to file the petition, petition being not maintainable and the appellant being guilty of concealing the material facts. It is averred that the appellant herself does not want to reside with the respondent and her parents are willing to get her married with some rich person. The father of the appellant came to meet her in the matrimonial home and took her along with him on the pretext of meeting with her mother but thereafter the appellant did not come back to the matrimonial home. The respondent tried his best to bring her back to the matrimonial home but she refused. He has filed petition under Section 9 of HMA for restitution of conjugal rights.

(3.) The appellant filed replication reiterating her averments set out in the petition and denied the allegations raised by the respondent.