BRIJESH KUMAR Vs. SEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2014 passed by the District Judge, Family Court, Sonipat, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ' the Act' ) for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, was allowed.

(2.) Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 1.7.2008 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Farmana, District Sonipat. The marriage was solemnized with a great pomp and show and a lot of dowry articles were given. The marriage was consummated and out of the wedlock, a daughter, namely, Khushi was born on 3.2.2010. With the lapse of time, the behaviour of the appellant and his family members became quite abnormal towards the respondent and they started taunting her without any reason as and when any member of her parental family came to her matrimonial home to give some gifts on the occasion of festivals. The appellant and his family members were not happy with the dowry articles given to her in her marriage and they demanded a motorcycle and cash of ' 3,00,000/-. However, a sum of ' 2,85,000/- was given to them in the first week of April, 2009. It was assured by the appellant and his family members that they will utilize the said amount for construction of the house on a plot of 100 square yards situated in Arya Nagar, Sonipat. In July, 2009, the parties shifted in the newly built house and after shifting to the said new house, the appellant started drinking and giving beatings to the respondent without any reason. The respondent was turned out of her matrimonial home in the first week of November, 2009, when she was pregnant, after giving her merciless beatings. She gave birth to a daughter on 3.2.2010 in PGIMS, Rohtak but none came from the side of the appellant to see the daughter despite several messages. Ultimately, on 1.4.2010, a panchayat was convened in village Rohtak wherein the appellant and his family members assured to keep the respondent properly and she was brought back to her matrimonial home on 2.4.2010. However, she was again turned out of her matrimonial home on 3.9.2010 after giving her merciless beatings. Thereafter, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 4.11.2010 on the assurance of the appellant to keep her properly. The respondent again joined the company of the appellant and after 10/15 days, the behaviour of the appellant became intolerable as he started giving merciless beatings to the respondent. Then, the respondent was again turned out of the matrimonial home on 8.10.2011 along with her minor daughter and since then she had been residing at her parental home. On 16.2.2012, the appellant along with his father came to the parental house of the respondent and took his daughter Khushi in his lap and started showing his endless love and affection for her and then they slipped away along with the minor daughter. Accordingly, the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said petition was contested by the appellant by filing a written statement. Besides raising various preliminary objections, it was pleaded that it was a simple marriage and no dowry was given by the parents of the respondent and no demand of dowry was ever raised by the appellant and his family members. It was further pleaded that the house was constructed by the father of the appellant from his own funds and no money was contributed by the parental family of the respondent. Further, the appellant had borne all the expenses of the birth of the daughter in PGIMS, Rohtak. According to the appellant, the respondent had left her daughter at his house and taken away all ornaments and valuable clothes behind the back of the appellant. She had left his company without any rhyme or reason. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the same was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-

(3.) To prove the averments made in the petition, the respondent herself appeared as PW1 and examined Dilawar as PW2, Asha Taneja as PW3. On the other hand, the appellant examined himself as RW1, Rajender Singh as RW2 and Balwan Singh as RW3.