NARESH KUMAR Vs. NEENA @ MEENA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the husband Naresh Kumar, whereby, he has impugned the judgment and decree dated 26th April, 2017, passed by the Ld. District Judge (Family Court), Ambala (in short 'Ld. Family Court') vide which the petition filed by him, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife/Meena on the grounds of cruelty and desertion was dismissed.

(2.) A few facts necessary for adjudication of the case, as pleaded in the petition filed by the appellant-husband (petitioner therein) before the Ld. Family Court, may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22nd April, 2002 at Ambala, as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies. A daughter was born on 07th February, 2003, out of the wedlock. It was pleaded that even though the wife was treated with love and affection by the appellant-husband and his parents, yet she would frequently quarrel and misbehave with them on trivial matters; she would often leave her matrimonial home and only return with the intervention of relatives. In December 2002, the wife went to her paternal home for the delivery of their child. After the delivery of the child, the appellanthusband and his mother went to see the child along with customary sweets and clothes. However, when the appellant-husband and his mother went to the parental home of the wife in March 2003, to bring her back to the matrimonial home after the birth of the daughter, she expressed her un-willingness to return and it was only after a great deal of persuasion, she reluctantly accompanied the appellant-husband to her matrimonial home. However, her attitude allegedly remained the same, as before and within a month of her stay in the matrimonial home, she returned to her parental home in April 2003. She was persuaded many a times to return to her matrimonial home, but to no avail. Her parents also refused to send her back with the husband to her matrimonial home. As the wife represented to the Army Headquarters for maintenance, she was granted Rs. 2000/- per month as maintenance from the salary of the appellant-husband, who is an army personnel, vide order passed in January 2005. All efforts made by the appellant-husband and his family with the help of Panchayats as well as the Army officials to bring about a reconciliation with the wife ended in a futile exercise. As a result of which, maintenance granted to her by the Army Authorities was discontinued. The wife thereafter, filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the appellant-husband, wherein, she and her minor daughter were granted maintenance in the sum of Rs. 6000/- per month i.e. Rs. 3000/- each, respectively. The appellant-husband submitted that he had been regularly paying the said maintenance to the wife and had also filed a petition for the custody of their minor daughter under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The appellant-husband pleaded that the wife had subjected him to immense cruelty for the last almost 11 years, ever since she deserted him in April 2003. In the aforementioned background, he pleaded before the Ld. Family Court that his marriage with the respondent-wife be dissolved on the grounds of 'cruelty' and 'desertion'.

(3.) Per contra, the respondent-wife (respondent therein) refuted and denied the allegations of the appellant-husband, in her written statement filed before the Ld. Family Court. She inter alia submitted that it was, in fact, the husband, who had meted out cruelty to her and had been harassing her with demands of dowry. She submitted that it was the husband, who had turned her out from her matrimonial home and compelled her to reside with her parents. She alleged that the appellant-husband did not even come to see his new born child and had even refused to maintain the respondent-wife and the child. It was only on account of the representations made by her to the Army Headquarters to trace out her husband that she was granted the said maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month. She further submitted that when she was called in pursuance to her representations to the Army Headquarters at Pathankot, the husband was asked to get a family quarter allotted to himself, but he refused the same. She submitted that the maintenance of Rs. 2000/-, which had been granted to her by the Army Authorities was discontinued after a compromise was effected between her and husband in June 2005, as a result of which she was taken back to her matrimonial home at Village Pai, Kaithal. The husband never ever visited his parental home at Village Pai during that time, until one day in May 2010, when he finally showed up and beat her up mercilessly. He, thereafter, turned her along with the child out of the matrimonial home. She also submitted that the husband did not pay the maintenance granted to her and her child under Section 125 Cr.P.C. regularly, whereupon, she had to file execution petitions for recovery thereof.