RAKESH GOYAL Vs. DEEPIKA GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition of the husband-appellant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce from the wife-respondent on the ground of cruelty, having been dismissed by the trial court, he has challenged that verdict in this appeal.

(2.) Parties had got married on 21.4.1995 at Ambala (Haryana), according to Hindu rites. A female child, Khushboo Goyal, was born out of this wedlock on 6.6.1996. The case of appellant is that respondent is a hot tampered lady, and from the very beginning, she had started nagging and abusing him in the presence of his friends and relatives. Out of his three brothers, one resided at Ludhiana and the other, at Khanna. His third brother had short eye-sight and he also could not walk. The appellant was, thus, the only person who could support him and old parents. The respondent, however, had been compelling him to reside separately, from his parents. Whenever he tried to make her understand his inability to fulfil this demand, she insulted him. On 30.4.1995 also, when she put forward similar demand and he did not accede to it, she denied access to him for having sexual intercourse with her and gave a tooth bite on his left arm. In the morning, she threw utensils on his face and abused his parents. He, ultimately, called Hari Krishan Dharni of Barnala to his house so that he might make her cool down. But, she abused him also. She behaved in a furious manner, on subsequent nights also. She had consumed even William 5 tablets, and threatened the appellant that she would kill herself and implicate him in a false dowry case. She also tore off his shirt and even pressed his neck with hands. At the time of delivery of child, he got her admitted in Civil Hospital, Barnala, on 6.6.1996, with the help of an old female relation of his. Even at that time, she became furious and abused him as well as his family relations. In the presence of his friends, she also levelled a false allegation that he had illicit relations with the said female. After her discharge from the hospital, she deserted him, with her entire belongings, and started living with her parents at Panipat. She was a divorcee but this fact was kept concealed from him, at the time of their marriage.

(3.) The respondent denied all the alleged acts of cruelty attributed to her. According to her, the appellant had turned her out of the house, alongwith the female-child, just after few days of delivery, due to non-fulfilment of the demand of her in-laws for more dowry and other articles, on the birth of the child. She also pleaded that the marriage-alliance had matured on the basis of advertisements got published by her parents, in the Tribune (newspaper) on 18.12.1994 and 3.4.1995, wherein it was clearly mentioned that she was a divorcee.