SAROJ KUMARI Vs. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been instituted by the wife against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court granting a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties to this petition.

(2.) The facts necessary for adjudication are being considered. The respondent-husband instituted petition under Section 13 (i-a) and (i-b)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pleading that the parties were married on 18th June, 2002 in accordance with the tenets of Hindu religion, customs and rites at village Saheli in District Hamirpur. They resided together as husband and wife for some time. There is no child out of this wedlock. The respondent-husband pleaded that they lived together as husband and wife for a short period when everything seemed to be all right, but later on it was alleged that she started'complaining that she had been forcibly married by her parents against her wishes and desire. On June 03, 2003, the respondent-appellant herein insisted that she wanted to visit her parents. She was asked to go there only for a few days but she did not like this as she wanted to stay there for a longer period. Incensed by this refusal, she consumed poison. She was rushed to various hospitals where by timely medical treatment, her life was saved. The dispute(s) between them were compromised on June 7, 2003. The respondent pleads that despite this, she refused to accompany him to the matrimonial home and threatened him that she would consume poison again and implicate his entire family in false criminal cases. The respondent asserts that she finally left the matrimonial home on June 18,2003 accompanied by her father and ever since she has not returned despite the best efforts made by the respondent herein. Again, the matter seemed to have been compromised on September 8, 2003. Thereafter, she lived with him for about l1/1 months and then left the house without any reasonable cause. The so-called compromise(s) were a ruse to lend false assurance to the husband that all was forgiven and forgotten.

(3.) The petition was resisted by the appellant, who pleaded sufficient cause for staying away and pleaded for award of special costs under Section 35-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. She pleaded that she was not permitted to come to the matrimonial home by the father of the respondent herein on one pretext or the other. She says that her in-laws had an aversion for her. They were demanding dowry. They were openly proclaiming that they had better matrimonial alliances for their son. When she went to Ludhiana to join the company of the respondent, she was again forced to leave his house by her Jeth (elder brother of the petitioner-respondent herein).