PREM CHAND GUPTA Vs. NIRMAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -husband is in appeal against rejection of his plea under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the "the Act") by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 2.5.2000.

(2.) THE marriage between the parties was soleminsed on 5.3.1988. Two issues (a daughter and a son) were born out of their union on 8.12.1988 and 21.10.1991 respectively. Both were in bank employment at the time of their marriage. The appellant was posted at Patiala; while the respondent was posted at Bathinda. Sometime thereafter, the respondent was transferred to Samana, District Patiala. During her tenure over there, she used to commute daily from Patiala. On 30/31.8.1994, the respondent withdrew "from the society of the petitioner". The appellant is "ready to keep the respondent with him at Patiala, the matrimonial house of the parties."

(3.) THE respondent -wife also conceded that she stayed with the appellant till 30/31.8.1994. However, she made a different presentation about the circumstances under which she had withdrawn from the society of the appellant. The appellant and his relations were not satisfied with the adequacy of the dowry brought by her. They used to always taunt her on that account. The appellant would every month make her part with the entire salary. The mother and a named cousin sister of the appellant used to humiliate the respondent on account of the birth of a female child to her and also on account of inadequacy of the gifts in the form of 'Chhuchak'. On 15.6.1990, a named younger brother of the appellant threw her off his scooter which was being driven at a fast speed. The intention was to kill her. She was got hospitalised by her three named colleagues; while the aforementioned brother of the appellant fled the spot. It were the parents of the respondent who got her treated at the hospital. After discharge from the hospital, she was taken to Bathinda. She resumed cohabitation shortly thereafter on the assurance of the appellant and his relations that she would be treated well. However, things did not really change for her. In the year 1991, she was tortured physically and mentally when she was in a family way. She intimated her torture to her brother vide letters dated 17.5.1991 and 16.7.1991. On receipt thereof, she was fetched by the members of her natal family who brought to her natal house. On 15.1.1992, the appellant and his father went over to the natal house of the respondent and fetched her on a promise of good behaviour. However, on the night of 19.4.1992, she was belaboured by the appellant and a named brother of his even when she was in a family way. When she intimated it to her parents, her father, brother and uncle came over to the matrimonial house of the respondent. They too were humiliated and slapped. However, the relations of the respondent first took her to Bathinda and, on account of her condition, she was shifted to Chandigarh where she was diagnosed to be a case of missed abortion. Again, there was a panchayat on 22.11.1992 and she resumed cohabitation at the matrimonial house at Patiala. Again, during the period of her stay over there, she was forced to part with her salary besides certain cash amount of Rs. 15,000/ - and an FDR of Rs. 3,000/ -.