MOHINI CHAWLA Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 11-9-2008 passed by the Additional district Judge, Rohtak whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the respondent-husband has been allowed and the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by a decree of divorce.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 13-4-2001 at delhi according to hindu rites. At the time of their marriage, both the parties were divorcees. They started living together at Delhi but as per the assertion of the respondent, the marriage was not consummated. On the very first night, the appellant refused to have sex with him under the pretext that she was undergoing menses course. After few days of marriage, the appellant told the respondent that she after getting divorce from her previous husband about seven years ago had decided not to re-marry and that the present marriage with the respondent was against her will and wishes. She was not interested in the married life and particularly for sex or for procreation of children. According to the respondent, he gave her some time to settle. His business at Delhi was not going on well and, therefore, he had shifted to Village anwal in July, 2001. The appellant was at that time handed over Rs. 25,000/- by the respondent which she gave to her mother in village Anwal. On shifting to Village Anwal, the appellant started residing with her mother in her house which was also situated in the same village. With the intervention of the close relations such as Krishan lal Dua, Ram Lubhaya, Bhagwan Dass kinra and Mahla Ram Chawla, the appellant came to her matrimonial house in August, 2001 and thereafter in the last week of October, 2001 unwillingly. She stayed there for one night each time but she did not allow the respondent to have sexual intercourse with her. After the last week of october, 2001, the appellant never came back to the matrimonial house and since then, is residing in her parental house. On these facts, the respondent had sought divorce on the ground of physical and mental cruelty as well as desertion.

(3.) ON the other hand, the appellant denied all the allegations made by the respondent against her. She contended that the petition for divorce has been filed just to harass her and rather, her stand is that Usha and Suman who are the sisters of the respondent are residing in the matrimonial house with him. They off and on used to pass remarks that the appellant has not brought sufficient dowry and she is unable to conceive and give birth to a child. Similarly, the mother-in-law Sheela and brother-in-law Madan Lal also taunted her and harassed her. As a matter of fact, the appellant was turned out of her matrimonial home in her wearing apparels and all her dowry articles were retained by the respondent and his family members. After the death of her mother, her sister Varsha Kumari, brother-in-law Parveen Kumar, cousin Gulshan kumar, brother Shadi Lal and his wife went to the respondent to persuade him to keep her with him and it was then that they were told that since the appellant could not deliver any child, therefore, they would not keep her with them. The respondent also supported them and refused to keep the appellant with him. On the basis of the said pleadings, evidence was led by both the parties and on consideration of the same, the petition preferred by the respondent has been allowed and decree of divorce passed. It is the judgment and decree dated 11-9-2008 passed by the Court below which has been challenged in the present appeal.