JYOTI SEHGAL Vs. JASWINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the wife-Jyoti Sehgal @ Barkha, whereby, she has impugned the judgment and decree dated 26th October, 2017, passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. Court below'), vide which the petition filed by the respondent-husband/Jaswinder Kumar, under Section 13 and 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant-wife on the ground of adultery and cruelty, was allowed.

(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal, as pleaded in the petition filed by respondent No. 1-husband (petitioner therein) before the Ld. Court below, may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22nd November, 2010 at Jalandhar as per Hindu rites and customs. A son was born out of the said wedlock on 01st October, 2011, who is presently residing with the husband. It was a love marriage and hence no dowry was given at the time of marriage. After marriage, the wife refused to live with her parents-in-law and pressurized the husband to move into a separate accommodation. The parties thus started residing in a separate accommodation. The husband showered her with all the love and affection so much so he even let the wife's younger brother reside with them in their house. As the wife would neglect their son, the husband had to leave the child to the care of his parents. The mother of the wife would revile the husband, as he belonged to the 'Chamar' community and would dissuade her daughter from residing with him. So much so, the wife even refused to have any conjugal relations with the husband. The wife developed illicit relations with an Auto Driver namely 'Preet @ Pritpal Singh' (respondent No. 2 therein), who would drive her to her workplace daily. When the husband came to know about it, he questioned her about the same and asked her to mend her ways but he was threatened by the wife not to interfere in her relationship with Preet @ Pritpal Singh or else she would circulate material that would sully his reputation in the society. All his pleadings with her fell on deaf ears. The husband managed to procure video clips from the mobile phone in which she and Preet @ Pritpal Singh were found in a compromising position, which were converted into a CD by him. On 02.04.2014, the mother of the wife as well as the councillor of the area were called and in the presence of the Councillor, the mother of the wife, took her away from the matrimonial home. On 09.04.2014, the wife and Preet @ Pritpal Singh came to the laboratory of the husband and demanded Rs. 10.00 lakhs from him in order to reconcile the matter, to which the husband flatly refused. The husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act, seeking decree of divorce on the grounds of adultery and cruelty, but subsequently, a compromise was effected on 21st May, 2014, whereby, it was agreed that the parties would file a joint petition under Section 13-B of the Act. The wife made her statement at the first motion in Court and received a sum of Rs. 25,000/-, out of the agreed amount of Rs. 50,000/-. However, at the time of second motion, she withdrew her consent for mutual divorce. The wife even tried to kidnap their minor son. The husband moved a complaint against the wife before the Police. To avoid criminal prosecution, the wife instead lodged an FIR No. 37, dated 05.03.2015, under Sections 497 of IPC and 66E/57A of the Information and Technology Act against said Preet @ Pritpal Singh, wherein, she admitted to living in adultery with him, but twisted the facts in such a way to avoid any liability.

(3.) Per contra, upon notice of motion having been issued, the appellant-wife (respondent No. 1 therein) refuted and denied the allegations of respondent No. 1-husband, in her written statement filed before the Ld. Court below. She admitted the factum of their marriage as well as the birth of their son. She alleged that the husband had concocted a story with an ulterior motive to malign her. She submitted that neither were there any illicit relations between her and Preet @ Pritpal Singh nor was there any CD of her and Preet @ Pritpal Singh, much less in a compromising position.