ROHTASH Vs. ANSUIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Husband has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated October 27, 2016 passed by District Judge, Family Court, Sonipat dismissing his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for short 'the Act', for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce on the ground that his wife respondent No.1 has treated him with cruelty and has also deserted him. Besides this, he had levelled allegations that respondent No.1 had illicit relations with her brother-in-law (jija) and leveled allegations of adultery. The appellant in his petition for divorce had averred that marriage between the parties had taken place on 28.06.1999. No child was born out of the wedlock. The conduct of respondent No.1 was normal for 3/4 days after marriage but thereafter she indulged in quarreling with the appellant and his family members on the pretext that she did not want to stay in the joint family and refused to adjust with the family members. Respondent No.2 Jija of respondent no.1 had started coming to the house of the appellant. She made allegations against the appellant that his character was not good and he had illicit relations with his Bhabhi, namely, Kamla. She consistently insulted and humiliated the appellant. The appellant had requested respondent No.2 to restrain himself from coming to his house but he did not agree. It is alleged in the petition that respondent No.1 had left the matrimonial home without the consent and knowledge of the appellant. In this context, a panchayat was convened. It was settled that the appellant will stay with respondent No.1 in Delhi as such he took a rental house in Delhi and started living thee with respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 started visiting the rented house at his back and she indulged in frequent quarrels with the appellant on the instigation of respondent No.2. The mother of the appellant along with his brother had visited the house of the appellant in Delhi and hi mother had observed respondent No.1 and 2 in objectionable position when the appellant was on his duty. Respondent No.1 was also seen by the mother of the appellant mending their wearing clothes in the house. There was exchange of hot words between the appellant and respondent No.1 as such respondent No.1 had left the house and lodged a case in the Women Cell, Delhi. The appellant was threatened by the brother of respondent No.1 who had also given beatings to the appellant at the gate of Women Cell. The appellant had left the rented house and started living at his place of service and respondent No.1 had also left the rented house without permission of the appellant. On September 19, 2013, respondent No.1 along with her brother had come to the matrimonial home at Village Khewra and gave beatings to the appellant without any cause. The appellant had registered a cross case at Police Station, Rai. Respondent No.1 also got registered a case under Sections 406, 498A, 323 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi against the appellant and his family members and also filed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in the Court at Rohini, Delhi. The appellant lost his reputation and dignity in the society and respondent No.1 had withdrawn herself from the society of the appellant without any sufficient cause.

(2.) Respondent No.1 contested the claim of the appellant and averred that the appellant himself is responsible for causing mental and physical cruelty to her regarding which she had filed a criminal complaint against the appellant and his family members. The divorce petition was allegedly the counter-blast to the criminal case. She denied all the allegations regarding her behaviour and has averred that since the inception of the marriage the appellant and his family members used to harass her for bringing less dowry. She denied the allegation of respondent No.2 having ever visited the house. She averred that she was driven out of the matrimonial home by the appellant and was compelled to live with her parents. The mother of the appellant had lodged a false case against her in which she has been acquitted from the Court of Ms.Natasha Sharma, the then JMIC, Sonipat. The mother of the appellant had also filed a private complaint which was also dismissed. Respondent No.1 had filed a criminal case against the appellant and his family members regarding demand of dowry in the Courts at Delhi. Respondent No.1 has urged in the written statement that her dowry articles stands misappropriated by the appellant and his family members and that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home by the appellant. It is the appellant who has withdrawn himself from the society of respondent No.1and that she is still willing and ready to join the company of the appellant. The allegations of adultery with respondent No.2 were contested.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-