KIRAN KHOSLA Vs. RAKESH RAI KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife - Kiran Khosla against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2014 vide which the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') was allowed by the trial Court.

(2.) Few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as pleaded in the petition before the learned Court below may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.02.1999 at Batala as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, both the parties resided and cohabited together. One female child was born on 03.06.2000 out of the said wedlock, who is in the custody of the appellant-wife. As per averments made in the petition, it was pleaded that the marriage was a simple one. The appellant-wife from the very beginning of the marriage was unhappy in the matrimonial home. She would often pressurize the respondent-husband to demand his share in the family property and to move in with her at her mother's house as a "ghar jawai". Since the respondent-husband was reluctant to toe her line, the appellant-wife used to indulge in derogatory language and would not even hesitate to humiliate the respondent-husband and his family in front of one and all. It was further alleged that the appellant-wife would extend threats to falsely implicate the respondent-husband and his family in dowry case if he did not agree to move into her mother's house. The respondent-husband also alleged that in the month of May, 2000 when the appellant-wife was pregnant, on her asking he sent her to her mother's house at Phagwara where she delivered their daughter. He claimed that all the expenses incurred at the time of delivery of their daughter were borne by him. After the respondent-husband brought back the appellant-wife and their daughter to his house on 03.09.2000, the appellant-wife again started exerting pressure on the husband to move into her mother's house to which he did not agree. This resulted in a quarrel between the parties and on 20.01.2001, the appellant-wife left the matrimonial home along with the daughter and took along with her all her jewellery and valuables. The respondent-husband claimed that he made several efforts to bring back the appellant-wife into the conjugal fold but it proved to be a futile exercise. The appellant-wife got registered a criminal case under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the respondent-husband and his brother which however, ended in their acquittal vide judgment dated 22.08.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Phagwara. The respondent-husband pleaded that the marriage had broken down beyond repair as no cohabitation had taken place between them since 20.01.2001.

(3.) Per contra, the appellant-wife in her written statement filed before the Court below, denied the allegations and averments made in the petition. She rather stated that soon after their marriage, the respondent-husband and his family had shown their dissatisfaction qua the dowry given to her at the time of marriage. She claimed that she was maltreated by the respondent-husband and his family and in May, 2000 she was forcibly sent to Phagwara for the delivery of their daughter. She alleged that the respondent-husband and his family did not even care to see their newly born daughter and came only after two months of the birth of the child and that too on the asking of her mother. She claimed that though she and her daughter were taken back by the respondent-back to the matrimonial home but they persisted with their demand for more dowry. She rather claimed that it was the respondent-husband, who forcibly sent her in January, 2001 to Phagwara and ever since then she had been living with her mother. Qua the criminal case instituted against the respondent-husband and his brother under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, she claimed that after the registration of the case, the respondent-husband apologized. Hence, a compromise was effected between the parties leading to the acquittal of the respondent-husband and his brother in the said case.