ANISH THAKUR Vs. SHIWANI JASWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Family Court, Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Court below") has maintained the instant appeal under Sec. 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, against the judgment and decree dtd. 31/10/2020, passed by the learned Court below, in HMA Petition No. 352/19/17, with a prayer to set-aside the same by allowing the instant petition.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant- Anish Thakur (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner") filed a petition before the learned Court below under Sec. 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") seeking dissolution of marriage from his wife Smt. Shiwani Jaswal (respondent herein) by a decree of divorce. The petitioner averred that he and the respondent solemnized marriage on 7/5/2015, according to Hindu rites and customs, but the respondent remained in the company of the petitioner for two months only. Out of their wed-lock, on 9/4/2016, a male child was born and the child is in the care and custody of the respondent since his birth. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the respondent was having friendship with a person. The petitioner found respondent on telephonic call with a person during the odd hours of the night. On being asked by the petitioner, the respondent divulged that she was unwilling to marry him and was willing to marry another person, namely, Shri Sanjay Bhardwaj. As per the petitioner, the respondent divulged to him that as Shri Sanjay Bhardwaj belonged to another caste so her parents objected to their marriage and she married the petitioner under the pressure of her parents. Despite previous relation of the respondent have ignored all these facts and has suggested the respondent to live a new life by keeping in view the dignity and honor of her husband and her in-laws. On 12/3/2016, on the demand of the respondent, the petitioner left her at her parental house and at that time the respondent was pregnant. The respondent gave birth to a male child at Sanjeevan Hospital Mandi, H.P., where all the arrangements were made by the petitioner and his family and the petitioner paid all the dues. After the delivery, the petitioner requested the respondent to come to her matrimonial house, however, the respondent and her mother assured the petitioner that after some time the petitioner would come to her matrimonial house. As per the petitioner, the respondent also assured him that 'Gantrela' and 'Namkaran' ceremonies of the new born baby would be performed in the matrimonial house. The respondent went to her parental house alongwith the child and for a night the petitioner also stayed with them. The petitioner further averred that he purchased clothes etc. for the new born baby and also gave some money to the respondent and on 11/4/2016 the petitioner came back to his house. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to contact the respondent on her as well as on the mobile of his mother-in-law, but his calls were not attended. Ultimately, when the petitioner failed to contact the respondent, he sent a text message to the respondent on 18/4/2016 conveying to be ready alongwith the child that he was coming to take them back. On 18/4/2014, around 11:00 a.m., the petitioner reached the parental house of the respondent and requested the respondent to accompany him alongwith the child so that 'Gantrela' and 'Namkaran' ceremonies of the new born baby could be performed on 22/4/2016. However, the respondent, at the instance of her parents, refused to join the company of the petitioner and also refused for the above ceremonies. As per the petitioner, due to the act and conduct of the respondent and her parents, the petitioner and his family members suffered humiliation and the name of the new born child had not been disclosed to him. The petitioner further averred that on 20/4/2016, he tried to contact the respondent telephonically, but the respondent did not answer his call. The petitioner and her family members have performed 'Gantrela' and 'Namkaran' ceremonies of the new born child in the absence of the son and his mother as the ceremonies were pre-fixed on 22/4/2016. As per the petitioner, the act and conduct of the respondent amounts to mental as well as physical cruelty towards the petitioner. On 15/3/2017 the petitioner again went to the parental house of the respondent to bring her back, as on 9/4/2017 the first birthday of their son was falling, but the respondent and her parents refused to talk to him and they did not allow him to enter their house. As per the petitioner, he waited for four hours in the courtyard, but he was not allowed to enter the house and lastly he came back. On 31/3/2017 the father of the petitioner alongwith two respectable persons of the locality went to the house of the respondent for persuading them to send the respondent with the child, but the respondent and her parents again refused. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent, which was not responded by her. As per the petitioner, the act and conduct of the respondent amounts to mental as well as physical cruelty. Ultimately, the petitioner filed a petition seeking under Sec. 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage.

(3.) The respondent contested the petition by filing reply, wherein she raised preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and estoppel etc. As per the respondent, after the marriage, she started living in her matrimonial home, but she was not treated nicely by the petitioner and his parents. The respondent further averred that she was being treated like a slave and tortured badly on the demand of car as dowry. She was not given proper food and clothes and was not even allowed free moments. When she was in her advance stage of pregnancy, she was turned out from her matrimonial house and the petitioner and his parents threatened her with dire consequences. As per the respondent, false accusations of unchastity were leveled and on this ground merciless beatings were given to her and she was tortured and insulted. The respondent further averred that the allegation of friendship with another person was totally wrong and she denied any telephonic conversation with anyone. The petitioner did not provide any maintenance to the respondent and her child. As the petitioner wanted to get rid of the respondent, he came up with the defence that the petitioner had friendship with another person. The respondent also averred that under the compelling circumstances 'Gantrela' and 'Namkaran' ceremonies were performed at her parental house. The petitioner never tried to take the respondent and the child to his house. Lastly, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.