VEENA Vs. RAVI RATTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2008 passed by the District Judge (Fast Track Court), Hisar, whereby the petition filed by respondent -husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was allowed, the appellant -wife had approached this Court by way of instant appeal.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are as under: The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.11.1992 at Jalandhar as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife and two children were born out of their wedlock namely,Vivek and Suraj. Elder was aged 12 years and younger 9 years at the time of institution of the petition.

(3.) THE appellant contested the petition. In the written statement filed by her she denied all allegations of the husband and submitted that her elder son was born on 09.09.1993 i.e., within 9 months and 19 days of marriage. She also mentioned that Smt. Krishna Devi is not real mother of the respondent but is his paternal aunt (Bhuwa). When she was pregnant, one day before delivery, Krishna Devi abused her and in connivance with the husband turned her out of the house. She also pleaded that the respondent is a character less person having illicit relations with other ladies. Though she admitted that she had left the house on 17.04.2000 but denied that she had taken jewellery or cash with her. She also pleaded that she was an unemployed lady and for that reason she had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewari and an execution petition for recovery of maintenance amount was pending. She admitted having moved an application to the police of Jalandhar but stated that while she was ready to live with her husband it was the husband who refused to take her. Stating that Rattan Lal and Smt. Krishna are partners in the petrol pump situated at Balsmandh and the respondent has no concern with the same, the appellant added that she has no connection whatsoever with Rattan Lal and his son. According to her, the plot transferred by her in the name of her husband was sold by him to two persons and a case stands registered against him in that regard. Denying that he had caused any cruelty to the respondent or had deserted him, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the petition.