PARVEEN KUMARI Vs. RAMNISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant -wife against the judgment and decree dated 4.10.2006 passed by the trial court whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, "the Act") filed by the respondent -husband 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 4.4.2002 at Kurukshetra as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. They resided at Village Pabnawa where the marriage was consummated. A daughter was born out of this wedlock on 15.2.2003. As alleged in the petition under Section 13 of the Act filed by the respondent husband, the appellant was having illicit relationship with one Suresh Kumar. After a few days of the marriage, the respondent had seen his wife in an objectionable position with him in their bed room in the house of the respondent at Village Pabnawa. On another occasion, he had seen both of them in the same position at the parental house of the appellant wife. On both these occasions, the respondent had raised objection and had a quarrel with her but her family members had intervened. Even then, the appellant continued to meet the said Suresh Kumar. The appellant used to misbehave with the family members of the respondent and threaten to involve them in criminal case. When daughter was born to the appellant, the respondent was not allowed to see the child. Ultimately, the respondent filed petition under section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of mental cruelty and desertion besides the allegation that the appellant was living in adultery. Upon notice, the appellant appeared and filed written statement controverting the averments made in the petition. She even made counter allegation that infact the respondent was having illicit relations with his bhabi Usha. When she same to know about this fact, she was advised by the respondent to keep it secret in order to save the reputation of the family. She further alleged that the respondent was impotent and used to take some medicines before having sexual intercourse with her. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record allowed the petition filed by the respondent -husband vide impugned judgment and decree dated 4.10.2006. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant wife.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.