SUBHASH KUMAR Vs. RANJU BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 8.3.2007 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in HMA Petition No. 26/04 RBT No. 19/05/04.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that respondent has instituted a petition against the appellant under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce. Marriage between the parties was solemnized at village Malahat, Tehsil and District Una, Himachal Pradesh as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Family members of the appellant started harassing the respondent for bringing insufficient dowry. Parents of the respondent have gifted washing machine, sofa set etc. and jewelry worth Rs. 1.50 Lakh. He also has taken Rs. 1,10,000/ - in cash from the parents of the respondent before marriage under the pretext of establishing independent business at Ghaziabad. It was claimed at the time of marriage that he was a Chartered Accountant and earning Rs. 25,000 per month. However, she subsequently came to know that he was working in a private company. Appellant used to raise demand of dowry. The acts of the appellant have caused grave hardship, mental pain and agony to the respondent. Appellant had developed illicit relations with landlady namely Shoba Rani. Whenever respondent used to object, appellant used to beat her mercilessly. Appellant has been paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - i.e. Rs. 40,000/ - by demand draft and Rs. 20,000/ - in cash. Respondent was thrown out of matrimonial house at Jankaur. Petition was contested by the appellant. He denied that he and his family members ever demanded dowry or cash from the respondent or her parents. He denied that a sum of Rs. 60,000/ - was ever demanded by him. Respondent was pressurizing him to leave his job at Ghaziabad and to find some job at Moradabad. She left for her house at Moradabad on the Rakhi festival and she never returned to stay with him. Demand of dowry was never raised by him or his family members.

(3.) MR . Ajay Sharma, Advocate has argued that his client has never subjected the respondent to physical or mental cruelty.