SATISH KUMAR Vs. POOJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act of 1955") for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was filed by respondent-wife Pooja against her husband-appellant Satish Kumar, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2011. Assailing the said judgment and decree, the instant appeal was preferred by appellant-husband.

(2.) The relevant facts garnered from the record are as under:-Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.07.2003 at Kaithal, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, they cohabited as husband and wife and established their matrimonial home at Delhi. A son namely, Naman was the offspring of the wedlock born on 20.06.2004, who is presently in custody of respondent Pooja. The averments of Pooja were that her parents had given sufficient dowry and cash amount etc. to Satish Kumar and his family at the time of marriage but they were not satisfied and turned out to be greedy persons. From the very inception of marriage, they started demanding valuable articles like colour TV, refrigerator, motorcycle, washing machine and cash of "1 lac etc. as additional dowry. As she was unable to fulfill their demands, she was tortured and maltreated. Quoting certain specific incidents, Pooja alleged that on 21.07.2003, "5,000/- being Shagun amount lying with her, were stolen by Satish Kumar. On 25.10.2003, when she again came to her matrimonial home, she noticed that her gold ornaments, Sarees and watch etc. had been stolen away by Satish Kumar and his family members. When she tried to enquire about the stolen articles, she was badly beaten by them. She used to be physically assaulted over petty matters and many a times was not even permitted to take meals.

(3.) The petition was contested by appellant-husband Satish Kumar. In the written statement filed by him, a preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the District Court at Kaithal to try and entertain the present petition was raised. He also alleged that Pooja was guilty of suppressing true and material facts. She had herself left the matrimonial home for the reason known to her and without any sufficient cause. He denied the allegation that he and his family members ever demanded dowry or ill-treated Pooja. The father of Pooja was said to be a poor man being a street hawker having meager income and therefore was not even able to afford maintenance expenses of the family what to say of giving dowry to Pooja and her two sisters.