POOJA MEHNDIRATTA Vs. HEMANT KUMAR MEHNDIRATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of FAO Nos. 455 and 1161 of 2015 as both the appeals have been filed by the appellant wife against common judgment and decree dated 29.9.2014 passed by the trial court whereby the petition filed under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, "the Act") by the wife has been dismissed and the petition filed under Section 13 of the Act by the husband 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 11.2.1997 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, the parties, lived together at Delhi. A daughter namely Khyati was born on 4.9.1998 at Faridabad. The parties got engaged on 22.8.1996. The appellant wife was working as a teacher in Ryan International School, Faridabad and the respondent was working at Escorts Yamha Limited, Surajpur, Greater Noida. During that period, the appellant mentioned to the respondent that after marriage, he would like to give up her job and would prefer to be a house wife for which the respondent outrightly refused. Before the marriage, the respondent and his parents approached the father of the appellant and told him that they did not want to invite many of their relatives for the wedding and would prefer simple marriage ceremony. They put up a condition that the father of the appellant should present more gold in the marriage. The marriage was performed in a simple manner but 35 tolas of gold and other customary gifts were presented in the marriage. After the marriage, the appellant got herself transferred to Delhi. The couple went to Goa for honeymoon. When they returned back, there was change in the behaviour and attitude of the respondent and his family members. They started harassing and humiliating the appellant. They taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry. When the appellant conceived, her mother in law started insisting that she should produce a son. They started demanding for ultra sound in order to determine the sex of the fetus. The appellant refused for sex determination of the child. When the date of delivery came close, the respondent and his parents insisted that she should go to her parental house as per tradition for the delivery of the child. She came back to her house on 16.5.1998. She gave birth to a daughter on 4.9.1998 at Faridabad but nobody from the family of the respondent came to see her. After one month of the delivery, the respondent came to the appellant and told her that since she had given birth to a girl, she would not be taken back in the matrimonial home. Panchayat was held at the instance of the appellant but the respondent and his family members refused to take her back. She quit her job at Delhi and joined as such again in Faridabad in April 2001. Thereafter the respondent asked for the photograph of the daughter. The appellant came to know that he wanted the same to claim benefit from his company. In November 2009, the respondent again contacted the appellant and told her that he wanted to meet her in order to discuss their future. The appellant got a call from an advocate at Delhi that the respondent was desirous of seeking annulment of marriage and she should give consent for the same. On 23.5.2010, the respondent came to the house of the appellant at Faridabad and told her that he had found a life partner and she should agree for divorce by mutual consent. Ultimately, the wife filed petition under section 10 of the Act for judicial separation and the husband filed petition under Section 13 of the Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed written statement controverting the averments made in the petition. The trial court after examining the entire evidence on record allowed the petition filed by respondent husband under section 13 of the Act and dismissed the petition under section 10 of the Act by the wife vide common judgment and decree dated 29.9.2014.

(3.) THE trial court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: - -