MANBEENA KAUR Vs. KARMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-wife has filed this appeal challenging judgment and decree dated 18.12.2015, whereby a petition filed by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking dissolution of her marriage with respondent-husband has been dismissed.

(2.) The case set up by the appellant-wife, as per her petition under Section 13 of the Act, is that she was married to respondent-husband on 25.4.2002 at Kisan Bhawan, Sector-35, Chandigarh. It is averred that though a 'barat' comprising 100 persons was expected but the respondent-husband instead brought 400 persons and after reaching they ordered for drinks and non-vegetarian food and the appellant's brother had to make arrangements immediately by spending double the amount. The marriage ceremony took place at Gurudwara Guru Nanak Darbar, Defence Colony, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. It is alleged that the respondent-husband demanded huge dowry in the shape of jewellery and cash amounting to ' 10 lacs. Despite the said demand having been met with by mother of the appellant, the respondent-husband, on the very first night after the marriage, taunted her for not serving the 'barat' as per expectations and for not giving dowry as demanded by them. The appellant-wife was also given beatings as a routine and was not even allowed to go anywhere to share her agony. Two children were born out of the wedlock but the respondent-husband did not bother to see the newly borns for months together. She was also given beatings for the reason that the mother of the appellant-wife had not given sufficient gifts on birth of the first son. It is also alleged that the respondent-husband even attempted to strangulate her in order to compel her mother to give more gifts and cash. Ultimately, the appellant-wife left her matrimonial home alongwith her two children on 1.9.2012 on the pretext that her brother had come from Sydney. She had requested the respondent-husband to give her gold ornaments and stridhan for use but he flatly refused to give the same. It is averred that the respondent-husband used to send SMS threatening the appellant-wife to kidnap her children and to kill her and consequently the appellant-wife had to send telegram to the police apprehending danger to her life and also to the life of her children.

(3.) The respondent-husband in his reply, while denying all the material averments made in the petition, asserted that the appellant-wife had left the matrimonial home without assigning any justifiable reason and as such she cannot be allowed to take benefit of her own wrongs. The respondenthusband asserted that a simple marriage had taken place and no demand had ever been raised by the respondent-husband or members of his family and that the mini truck received by father of the respondent-husband contained a sofa-set, double bed and empty almirahs, which the appellant-wife's mother insisted on giving despite the fact that the respondent-husband and his family had requested that the same were not required.