KAMAL VERMA Vs. NIDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was allowed, the appellant-husband has approached this Court by way of instant appeal.

(2.) Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 2.7.2000 at Panipat, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. The marriage was consummated between the parties. Out of the said wedlock, a daughter, namely, Vanshika was born on 25.10.2012 who is residing with the respondent. After few days of the marriage, the appellant and his family members started teasing, taunting and beating the respondent on petty matters. The appellant demanded ' 1 lac from the respondent for purchasing a plot measuring 32 square yards in Tej Colony, Tehsil Camp, Panipat. The said plot was purchased for ' 30,000/- and construction thereon was raised by the mother of the respondent. The appellant pressurized the respondent and her mother to transfer the ownership of the said house in his name. The appellant was a drunkard and used to give beatings to the respondent. He did not pay the domestic expenses to the respondent and she had to run household from the income of her mother who was serving in Sewa Dal at Civil Hospital, Panipat. The appellant used to come home at late night and threatened to remarry with some other girl if the said house was not transferred in his name. The appellant had stolen the sale deed of the said house and blackmailed the respondent to sell the same upon which she moved a complaint to the police. However, the matter was compromised and the respondent received the sale deed back. On 1.8.2008, the appellant gave beatings to the respondent and thrown her out of her matrimonial home along with minor daughter and threatened to face dire consequences if she would not bring ' 50,000/- cash. Efforts were made to settle the matter through panchayat but to no effect. Accordingly, the respondent filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The said petition was contested by the appellant by filing a written statement. Various preliminary objections were raised. It was pleaded that respondent Nidhi was also known as Seema Rani and both of them had met in the month of May, 2000 in a STD/PCO Booth at Amar Bhawan Chowk, Panipat and their consent meeting turned into friendship which lateron, resulted into their marriage. The mother of the respondent was happy with their marriage but the parents of the appellant did not agree and, therefore, he shifted in a rented house as he was in true love with her. Since the mother of the respondent was a poor widow, their marriage was performed by Nari Kalyan Samiti (Registered), Panipat in West Hotel, GT Road, Panipat on 2.7.2000. The appellant also got released the father of the respondent on bail who was involved in some criminal case. Later on, the father of the respondent disclosed that he was having two wives, i.e. the mother of the respondent as well as one Jagwanti. The respondent and one son, namely, Rinku @ Lalit Kumar were from his first wife, while from the second wife Jagwanti, he had two sons, namely, Deepak and Raju. He himself, along with son Rinku @ Lalit Kumar was living with his second wife. The appellant had to sell his plot situated at Ujha Road, Panipat under the pressure of the respondent and her mother for a consideration of ' 1,90,000/- and then he purchased a plot in Tej Colony, Panipat for a sale consideration of ' 90,000/-. The appellant constructed a one room set over the said plot by spending ' 80,000/-. In the month of September, 2007, a boy told the appellant that his brother Ajay Kumar had developed relations with the respondent and he threatened the appellant to take divorce from the respondent so that his brother could marry with her. On enquiry, the appellant came to know that the respondent and said Ajay Kumar were working in BRM Institute, Model Town, Panipat and the respondent used to talk with him on his mobile No. 9813506338. Thereafter, the respondent and her mother forced the appellant to give divorce to the respondent and also filed a false complaint against him regarding theft of original sale deed of the said house. The police asked the appellant either to leave the said house or he would be implicated in some false theft case, due to which he left the said house on 10.10.2007 and the respondent withdrew the complaint as compromised. On 16.11.2007, the respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the appellant but withdrew the same on 13.5.2008 by making a statement that she did not want to continue with the said case as she was leading happy married life. Thereafter, the appellant, respondent, her mother and brother Rinku @ Lalit Kumar had also attended a Jagran got organized by her mother. Besides this, the appellant had also paid the installments of committee taken by the respondent and paid charges of physical fitness course attended by her. A criminal case bearing FIR No. 487 dated 30.5.2009, under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station City, Panipat was registered against the brother of the respondent upon which, the respondent asked the appellant to arrange ' 50,000/- for contesting the case. However, when the appellant expressed his inability, the respondent filed the divorce petition. 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.) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR