SATVINDER SINGH CHOUDHARY Vs. RITU JAGLAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the husband against the judgment and decree dated 3.9.2009, dismissing his petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the respondent for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(2.) The case set up by the appellant in his pleading is that the parties were married on 29.3.2004 at Karnal. No issue was born out of the wedlock. The appellant claimed to be highly qualified physician having a degree of M.D. to his credit. It was pleaded that the respondent was also having qualification of M.Sc. (Computer Science) with MCA. She was working as part time Lecturer at Kurukshetra and was preparing for NET exam for lecturership. Proposal of marriage was initiated in the month of November, 2003. The appellant pleaded that he was in search of a suitable girl and being a doctor was looking after the accidental injuries to his mother. The appellant has pleaded that the father of the appellant had desired the marriage to be a dowry-less marriage by taking only 5 persons in Barat on the lines of marriage performed by the elder brother of the appellant namely Sq. Leader Rajbir Singh Choudhary but at the instance of father of the respondent showing his reservations on the pretext that Shagun had to be received back from the friends, relatives and Biradari, insistence was made for bringing the Barat. It is pleaded that the engagement ceremony was held on 25.3.2004. Father of the respondent compelled the appellant and his father to accept Samsung T.V. brought by them. Few articles like gold chain, gold coin etc. were given to the appellant. The Barat consisting of 100 persons on 18.3.2004, reached the venue of marriage in Karnal at 10:00 P.M. when there was hardly left anything in the Pandal for Baratis. The phera ceremony was performed at the house of the respondent and after the said ceremony when the appellant along with his brothers and their respective wives had gone to the house of the respondent her father asked the elder brothers of the appellant to go out of the room in a harsh language and the elder brother of the appellant Sq. Leader Rajbir Singh Choudhary, was humiliated by requiring him to leave the room. The appellant and respondent had returned to the house in new Maruti LXI car which had already been purchased by the appellant and his father in the month of February, 2004 from their own resources. The respondent had come to the house of the appellant in the wee hours on the morning of 29.3.2004. At the time of Bidai, the father of the respondent had given Rs. 11000/- as Kanyadan, Rs. 101/- as Muklawa as shagun and few clothes and put a list of dowry articles in the towel of shagun. Certain articles like gold ring, gold chain, panjeb and ear tops etc. were given by the father of the appellant despite the objection of the father of the appellant that nothing was required. It is pleaded that most of the said articles have now been taken back on 30.6.2004. The various instances to establish the cruelty have been mentioned in the petition which can be summarised as follows to avoid a voluminous judgment :-

(3.) The respondent filed a detailed written statement taking up preliminary objections that there was no cause of action against the respondent and that the appellant wanted to get rid of her and was interested in the second marriage. He has tortured the respondent mentally and physically. The behaviour of the family members of the appellant especially his parents, brother Rajbir and Suman wife of Rajbir was cruel and they had been taunting the respondent. It is pleaded that a very small incident has been given the colour of tutored facts just to create grounds of divorce. From the very beginning, wish of the appellant was that the respondent should be a Lecturer in a Government College and her appointment should be financed by the father of the respondent. The parents of the appellant had kept the respondent under psychic pressure that she should clear the NET exam and should also qualify Ph.D so that she can be appointed at the earliest. The parents of the appellant used to sit outside the room of the respondent keeping it locked from outside giving her curriculum of the day regarding her study hours. She was pressurised to attain Ph.D qualification or clear the NET exam off and on by the appellant and his parents. She was made to understand that in case she failed in NET or does not devote time to the study, she would be shunted out or divorced. All the allegations in the petition for divorce were denied. It was pleaded in the reply that the appellant needed a nurse and not a wife. Whenever, she wanted to visit her parents, friends or relations, her father-in-law never allowed her to visit them on the pretext that who would take care of her mother-in-law. The respondent used to apply medicines on the wounds of mother-in-law daily. Rs. 14 lacs were spent on marriage. The list of articles given in the marriage, at the time of roka ceremony, engagement ceremony were pleaded. It was pleaded that funds were given to the appellant for car with which Zen Car was purchased in his own name. It was pleaded that the father of the respondent never interfered in the day to day life of his daughter and always respected the appellant and his family members. However, the in-laws of the appellant insulted her in presence of her relatives on the ground that sufficient dowry had not been given nor she is getting employment. Mother in law of the respondent accompanied her to Karnal on 30.4.2006. Thereafter, her mother took her to parental house on account of 'Teez' festival. It was denied if any condition was ever imposed by the father of the respondent. The respondent had always been ready and willing to reside with the appellant in her matrimonial house and her parents were always ready for her settlement in the matrimonial house. Respondent got a job in D.A.V. College, Karnal because of her qualifications and her father-in-law never helped her in getting the employment. She had been making frequent calls when the appellant was admitted in the hospital but her in laws had asked her not to cal again and again. Panchayats were convened on 19.12.2004 and 11.2006, by the respondent side but neither the appellant nor his father attended the Panchayat on 11.2006. In fact, Rajbir Choudhary, brother of the appellant came present in said Panchayat. The respondent claimed that she had not filed any complaint against the appellant or his family members as she was always ready and willing to join the company of the appellant for which he was not interested.