SUNITA Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant wife against the judgment and decree dtd. 16/10/2014 passed by the trial court whereby the petition filed by the respondent husband under Sec. 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage has been allowed.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as available on the record may be noticed. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23/2/2007 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Village Kheri Masania. After the marriage, they lived together as husband and wife at Village Jhanj Khurd. From the very beginning, the appellant was not happy with the respondent as she wanted to marry an employed person. After three days of marriage, the appellant went to her parental house as per customary rituals and came back after 15 days. The appellant stayed with the respondent for about 5 to 7 days till 15/10/2007. During the said period, the relations between the parties were not good. Ultimately, the appellant left the house of the respondent and did not come back. On 30/11/2008 at about 9 PM, father of the appellant alongwith her other family members forcibly entered the house of the respondent and threatened the respondent and her family members with dire consequences on gun point. The respondent reported the matter to the police and as a counter blast, the appellant made a complaint against the appellant levelling false allegations of demand of dowry resulting into registration of FIR No.15 dtd. 12/1/2009 under Ss. 498A/406 IPC against the respondent and his family members. Earlier also, the respondent filed a petition under Sec. 13 of the Act against the appellant which was dismissed in default on 16/7/2009 but the said petition was not decided on merits and did not become final. Upon notice, the appellant appeared and filed written statement controverting the averments made in the petition. The trial court after examining the entire evidence on record granted divorce to the respondent-husband vide impugned judgment and decree dtd. 16/10/2014.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.