PREM PAL Vs. POONAM DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant Prem Pal against the judgment and decree dated 24.5.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhajjar whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ("Act"-for short) seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18.6.1999 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The 'Gona' ceremony was held in 2005. The marriage was consummated but the parties have had no child from their marriage. The appellant stated that the behaviour of the respondent and her family members since the time of the marriage had been cruel and uncooperative towards him. However, the appellant hoped that with the passage of time, her behaviour would improve; rather it went from bad to worse. It is alleged that on 25.5.2006 the respondent consumed 'celphos' (aluminium phosphide) in the morning. She was taken to the doctor and her parents were also called. They came to the house of the appellant and it was decided that their life cannot be normal in the prevailing circumstances. Accordingly a writing dated 27.5.2006 was scribed in the presence of the parents of the respondent. The respondent in terms of the said writing admitted that she had been residing with her parents-in-law till 27.5.2006 (Mark P-2) and from the said date, she had started to reside separately. She has got her rights and articles from her in-laws. Besides, her parents-in-law are not at fault. From then, she would have no relations with her parents-in-law, brothers-in-law and their wives. She would be responsible for herself and her household. For any wrong act done by her, she would herself be responsible. Despite this it is alleged that the respondent was giving threatening calls to the appellant that she would come to the house of the appellant and commit suicide as she had done previously. The respondent and his family members also threatened that they would involve the appellant and his family members in a false criminal case. The said behaviour of the respondent caused mental cruelty to the appellant. The same was of such a nature that it became impossible for the appellant to lead his life with the respondent except at the cost of his health and life. The parents of the appellant convened Panchayats at Charkhi Dadri many a times and tried for reconciliation of the matter. They requested the respondent and her family members for the rehabilitation of the parties. However, the Panchayat members misbehaved with the appellant and he was turned out from the house by the respondent. The respondent stated that she had disassociated all relations of husband and wife between them. Since 27.5.2006, the respondent had been living with her parents at Charkhi Dadri and she had deserted the appellant without any sufficient cause and against the wishes of the appellant. This according to the appellant constituted a cause of action for filing the petition. The appellant had earlier also filed a petition for divorce on 27.10.2006, which was compromised in the Permanent Lok Adalat where the respondent stated that she had settled her dispute with the appellant. On the said ground, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.3.2009. However, the respondent did not join the company of the appellant. A Panchayat was convened by the appellant on 4.4.2010 which went to the house of respondent at Charkhi Dadri but her (respondent's) parents did not allow the Panchayat members to enter their house. Therefore, the petition for grant of divorce had been filed.

(2.) On notice, the respondent appeared and filed her written statement. The fact of marriage between the parties is admitted. It is submitted by the respondent that her father was an employee of the Haryana State Electricity Board. He died after about two years of the marriage between the parties. The brother of the respondent gave various dowry articles like motorcycle, refrigerator, cooler, washing machine, double bed, dressing table, etc. at the time of 'Gona' ceremony of the respondent in August/September 2004. The allegations regarding behaviour of the respondent and her family members being unbearable and uncooperative to the appellant was denied. It is submitted that the respondent was always co-operative and submissive to the appellant from the date of their marriage. She paid all respects to the appellant and his family members. Besides, she performed her matrimonial and domestic duties and liabilities with full sincerity. The allegation of consuming 'celphos' (aluminium phosphide) as had been alleged was denied. It is stated that the actual facts were that the appellant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry articles given by the brother of the respondent at the time of 'Gona' ceremony. They started to ill treat the respondent for bringing insufficient dowry. The appellant was unemployed at the time of marriage and he was recruited in the military by the efforts of the father and brother of the respondent. The respondent was forced by the appellant and his family members to claim her share in the amount given on the death of her father by the Electricity Department. The appellant, mother-in-law of the respondent namely Indro and elder brother of the appellant namely Satpal and younger brother of the appellant namely Amar Pal started taunting her for not bringing sufficient dowry. They pressurized her to bring at least a Maruti Car or Rs. 1 Lac from her brother. The appellant and his brothers and mother, it is alleged, tried to forcibly administer poison to her forcibly but she strongly resisted the assault. In the meantime, sister of the respondent who was living in a separate house at some distance came there and freed the respondent from the grip of the appellant and his family members. In the process, the poison fell on the respondent due to which she felt giddiness. The respondent was got admitted in a private nursing home at Kosli. She and her sister did not disclose the said fact with the hope that the appellant would mend his ways but the appellant did not improve his behaviour towards the respondent. Ultimately, the respondent was put on a train to Charkhi Dadri and she was asked to bring a Maruti Car and cash from her brother. The brother of the respondent namely Satish along with the son of his uncle namely Sanjay and a neighbour of Sanjay went to the matrimonial home of the respondent to settle the matter amicably. However, the appellant misbehaved and threatened that if the above stated demands were not satisfied, he would be remarry. Besides, the signing of the paper by the respondent on 27.5.2006 and giving it to the appellant is emphatically denied. The said document, if any, it is stated has been procured by the appellant just to create false evidence. The allegations of making threatening calls to the appellant are denied. It is submitted that the appellant misbehaved with the respondent and she was turned out from her matrimonial home by him. Another sister of the respondent namely Kaushalya is married to the elder brother of the appellant namely Raj Pal. She was also ill treated by the mother-in-law and other family members of the respondent. Due to the said reason, the parties had started living separately. The respondent, it is submitted, is a 'pardanashin' lady where complaints against her husband and family members are not expected to be made. Therefore, the respondent did not make any complaint against the appellant and his family members before the Police. The appellant has, however, never shown any inclination at any stage to take the respondent back to her matrimonial home and he is not willing to keep the respondent in his matrimonial home. Rather he wants to get rid of the respondent so as to remarry. The allegations of the appellant and his parents regarding convening of any Panchayat to reconcile the matter as alleged are denied. The Panchayat members or any other person from the family of the respondent were never misbehaved with by the appellant as alleged. The respondent tried her best to settle her matrimonial life with the appellant but the appellant and his family members constantly insulted, abused and misbehaved with her. There was always a constant nagging by the mother-in-law of the respondent. The appellant and his family members created an atmosphere to deprive the respondent from the company of the appellant. The conduct of the appellant, it is stated, is parasitical, selfish and callous and he never gave any regard, respect and proper status of wife to the respondent in her matrimonial home. It is submitted that the appellant himself had turned out the respondent from her matrimonial home. He himself created such a situation and did not allow the respondent to live in the matrimonial home. The appellant was not willing to keep the respondent in the matrimonial home while the respondent was still willing to live with him and he cannot take the benefit of his own wrong. The appellant immediately after withdrawing the case from the Lok Adalat went from the Court without even speaking a single word with the respondent. The previous petition was filed by the appellant on the same ground and the same had been compromised. So the present petition, it is submitted, on the same ground was not maintainable and was barred by the principle of res judicata. The appellant did not allow the respondent to come back in his society. The appellant never brought any Panchayat on 4.4.2010 to Charkhi Dadri at the house of the respondent. It is submitted that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also pending between the parties in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. An additional objection has been raised that the appellant previously filed a divorce petition titled Prem Pal v. Poonam Devi bearing suit No. 106 of 2006 on the same grounds mentioned in the present petition which was decided by the Court of learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 28.3.2009 being compromised. Therefore, the present petition on the same ground was barred by the principle of res judicata. The appellant, it is submitted, was estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present petition. Besides, he has no locus standi to file the petition. The appellant has not come to the Court with clean hands. The present petition has been filed on false facts and fabricated documents to harass the respondent. Therefore, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: