LALITA Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and Decree of District Judge, Narnaul dated 6. 1. 1992 dismissing appellant's petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Smt. Lalita, appellant was married with Om Parkash-respondent on 27. 11-1982 at Narnaul. On the same day appellant's elder sister Lalina was married with the elder brother of the respondent. After the marriage both the girls lived in the house of their in laws for two days and thereafter they visited their parental house alongwith their husbands and after staying there for a day returned to their matrimonial home. On reaching the village Rudraul, respondent's elder brother Bihari complained to his father in the presence of petitioner and her sister that the articles of dowry which the petitioner's father had undertaken to give had not been given by him. On enquiry by petitioner's elder sister Lalina as to what was not given, her husband Bihari told them that their father had promised to give them a scooter and he had failed to do so. Thereupon, Bihari slapped the petitioner's sister and the petitioner and her sister started weeping. No food was given to them on that evening. What is worse, respondent and his elder brother returned to the house late at night in an inebriated condition and the elder brother of the respondent hurled abuses on the petitioner as well as her sister and their father. The petitioner rushed to her elder sister as she got frightened on seeing the behaviour of the respondent and his brother and the state of intoxication in which they were using vulgar language to them. Lalina elder sister of the petitioner was, however, given severe beating There was no lady in the house except the grand mother of the respondent who was too old and illiterate to intervene and be of any help to the petitioner and her sister. On the next morning, the petitioner's elder sister assured the respondent and his brother that she would manage a scooter from her father on the next visit and this helped to case the tension. A close relation of the petitioner from the parental side happened to visit the matrimonial house to enquire about their welfare. The elder sister of the petitioner narrated the whole story to him and requested him to give the message to her father that he should send someone to fetch them. On about 7th day of the marriage Arjun Lal came to village Rudraul and petitioner and her sister accompanied him to their parents' house. When they were leaving, they were told by the respondent not to disclose about the incident which took place earlier in the matrimonial home otherwise the would suffer the consequences when they come next. On reaching their parent's house, the petitioner and her sister made it quite clear to their parent's that under no circumstances would they go to their matrimonial home. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had repudiated her marriage in January, 1983 on attaining the age of 18 years and since then she had not resumed cohabitation. She had been residing with her parents and had received further education in order to stand on her own feet.

(3.) UNDER issue No. 1 on an evaluation of the evidence, the Trial Court recorded the finding against the petitioner. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the petitioner having not been pressed on her behalf. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the wife has preferred this appeal. Fresh re-conciliation efforts were made especially as the respondent-husband was keen that the appellant should appear in their Court personally so that he may be satisfied that she is really not willing to return to the matrimonial home. Accordingly, the appellant was called and she appeared in Court but conciliation was not possible.