VANDANA DEVI Vs. MUKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Karnal whereby petition for grant of divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act preferred by respondent-husband have been allowed on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Parties to the appeal got married on 26.02.2009 as per Hindu rites at village Amin, district Karnal. They resided together but no child was born out of this wedlock. Soon after the marriage, relation of the parties turned awry. Husband alleged that the wife (appellant herein) did not show interest in the household chores. Right from the beginning, her behaviour and attitude was harsh towards him and his family members. She avoided the respondent-husband and intentionally refused to have conjugal relations with him. As per his version, appellant- wife taunted him that her parents had married against her wishes. On many occasions, she had left his company without any sufficient cause and had returned only after the intervention of the Panchayat. It was alleged that in the month of April, 2009 appellant-wife consumed phenyl in order to falsely implicate the respondent-husband. But she was saved by the respondent- husband. On 01.02.2010, appellant-wife had left the matrimonial home to attend the marriage of her cousin and did not return back. Despite various efforts made by respondent-husband, she did not return which necessitated him to file present petition seeking dissolution of marriage. Same was contested by appellant-wife. She denied all the allegations of respondent- husband in her written statement. She inter alia alleged that there had been repeated dowry demands as well as demand of a car by the husband and his family. As she was unable to fulfill their demands, she was physically and mentally abused and harassed. In order to prove his case, respondent- husband himself appeared as PW1 and examined his father as PW2 and two other witnesses. On the other hand, respondent-appellant examined herself and her father as RW3 and RW1 respectively besides Numberdar as RW2. Both the parties adduced their evidence in support of their respective stands. After considering the entire issue and also the material on record, the court below allowed the petition filed by husband and dissolved the marriage between the parties on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no cogent evidence adduced by husband to substantiate the allegations of cruelty against her yet the court below went beyond the pleading and erred in dissolving the marriage between the parties on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. As there was no reason for dissolving the marriage, impugned order deserves to be set-aside. Plea has been refuted by learned counsel representing the respondent. He submits that allegations of cruelty levelled in the petition stand established on the basis of evidence on record.

(3.) We have considered the rival contentions of counsel for the parties. It appears that court below while appreciating the evidence on produced on record by both the parties arrived at a conclusion that the appellant-wife had treated the respondent-husband with cruelty besides deserting him. We find that the reasoning given by the court below is based on proper appreciation of evidence. It is evident that parties got married on 26.02.2009 and thereafter they lived together for almost one year. Ultimately, appellant left the matrimonial house on 01.02.2010 and thereafter she never returned back. It is borne out from the record that it was the appellant-wife who had withdrawn from the society of the respondent- husband without any reasonable excuse. Admittedly, she is presently residing in Auckland, New Zealand and has filed the present appeal from there as is evident from the memo of parties and affidavit attached alongwith the appeal.