VEENA Vs. RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - Veena alias Pummy challenging judgment and decree dated 21.04.2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat whereby the petition filed by respondent -husband, Raj Singh, under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act') has been allowed and the marriage between the parties has been dissolved.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was solemnised on 05.05.1992 at Mataur, District Meerut. They resided at village Jakhauli, District Sonepat after their marriage. It was pleaded that no child was born out of this wedlock though the appellant conceived four times. She aborted the pregnancy due to her dislike for the respondent. The appellant gave birth to a son at her parental home in village Mataur, District Meerut but it was denied that the child was of the respondent -husband as the parties were not in conjugal relationship at the relevant period. The child was studying at a school in village Jakhauli and the appellant had not entered the respondent's name as his father. It is averred that the appellant was a belligerent wife, having no respect for her husband or in -laws. She had illicit relations with one Tannu. When the respondent -husband objected to this relationship, the appellant was offended and threatened to implicate him in a false dowry case and even to commit suicide. She threatened to have him put behind bars. Though no specific date has been mentioned, it is pleaded that the respondent saw the appellant and the above said Tannu in each others company at his house. It was revealed that the appellant had wanted to marry the said person but she was forcibly married off to the respondent. The appellant tried to commit suicide in the winter of 1992 but was saved on account of timely treatment given to her at the Civil Hospital, Sonepat. The appellant, however, did not mend her ways and continued to have relations with Tannu. When she was warned of the consequences, the appellant left the matrimonial home on 01.07.1994 for her parental home at Mataur. The appellant was brought back by the respondent on 25.12.1994 on the intervention of respectables of the village. Soon thereafter, the appellant is alleged to have separated herself from the respondent -husband's father and younger brother in the absence of the respondent, who though, unwillingly, agreed to live separately in order to maintain peace and harmony. However, the appellant is averred to have separated only to continue her relations with Tannu without any interference. Due to annoyance of the respondent, she left the matrimonial home again on 10.05.1995. The appellant returned on 13.05.1995 i.e. the date of the marriage of the respondent -husband's sister alongwith police personnel from Police Station, Rai but keeping in view the marriage ceremony of the husband's sister, the police went back, but respondent and his family were called at the police station on 14.05.1995 i.e. the next day. No action was taken by the police after inquiring into the whole matter. The appellant stayed for ten days in the house of one Dharampal son of Dalip, a neighbour of the husband. The respondent -husband was threatened on 26.05.1995 by four persons with institution of a false dowry case and even death if he refused to permit the appellant to live with him on her own terms. The respondent -husband, however, refused to permit the appellant to live with him while maintaining relations with Tannu and left for Azadpur Mandi for trade of vegetables. When he returned home on 27.05.1995, he came to know that the appellant had left the matrimonial home at night alongwith all her ornaments and valuables etc. A report was lodged at Police Station Rai, Mark 'A' on 28.05.1995 with a request to seal his house and to recover the articles taken by the appellant while stating that the appellant was a characterless woman. The appellant was yet again brought back by her father -in -law i.e. the respondent -husband's father to village Jakhauli at the Tehrvi ceremony of the respondent's uncle. However, the parties did not co -habit with each other. The appellant on 19.01.2001 filed a complaint against the respondent, his brother Ran Singh and his father Hukam Singh before the SHO, Police Station Rai, with the allegations that all three tried to set her on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil upon her. Due to this false complaint, the respondent and his family suffered great harassment and he did not consider it safe to stay with the appellant anymore. Apprehending danger to his life and property, he sought divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty.

(3.) All the averments of adultery and cruelty were denied by the appellant in her written statement. While admitting the factum of marriage, it was explained that one daughter was born after about 1 1/2 years of marriage but she died three days after birth. Thereafter, whenever the appellant conceived, the respondent -husband forcibly got her aborted when the foetus was about six months old. A son was born out of this wedlock on 04.12.1995. It was explained that when the foetus was four months old, she was beaten up by the respondent and turned out of the house, thus, compelling her to proceed to her parental home at village Mataur. All allegations of illicit relations with Tannu or the child not being of the respondent -husband were denied. It is pleaded that the respondent -husband has been duly mentioned in the school records as the father of their child. She never tried to commit suicide at any point of time and has in fact discharged all her matrimonial duties in a proper manner. All efforts were made by her to maintain matrimonial relations with the respondent -husband, who himself wanted to get rid of her. It is explained that Anil, the appellant's brother had come to inquire about her welfare and when he came to know about the ill -treatment meted out to her, he asked the appellant to accompany him to her parental home as the appellant was pregnant at that time. Scared of the prospect of forcible abortion at the hands of the respondent yet again, the appellant accompanied her brother to her parental home, but this was with the consent of her husband. While admitting the complaint made to the police regarding physical abuse and attempt to set her on fire, it is submitted that she was constrained to approach the police due to the constant harassment, humiliation and torture suffered by her. The respondent -husband had apologized before the police and the matter was compromised. Though the appellant was compelled to live at her aunt's house for about ten days, she was allowed to live at her matrimonial home on intervention of the respectables of the village. Residing at the residence of any Dharampal was denied. The appellant -wife, thus, prayed for dismissal of the petition under Sec. 13 of the Act.