SHASHI BALA Vs. ANIL KUMAR AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2011, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, in HMA petition No. 18 of 2008, whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce having been filed by the petitioner namely Anil Kumar (respondent No.1 herein) came to be decreed.

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that petitioner (herein after referred to as respondent No.1/petitioner) preferred a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur (H.P.), averring therein that his marriage with the appellant (Shashi Bala) (herein after referred to as the appellant/respondent No.1) was solemnized on 17.6.2003 at village Nanawin, P.O. Malangar, Tehsil Bangana, District Una, H.P., as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of their wedlock, two children (Ankit and Muskan) were born. The petitioner/respondent No.1 further claimed before the Matrimonial Court that after marriage, appellant/respondent No.1, remained with him for about 4 years and during this period, she developed illicit relationship with respondent No.2 namely Jeet Kumar. He further stated before the Court below that despite repeated requests, the appellant/respondent No.1 failed to mend herself and continued her illicit relations with respondent No. On 6.4.2008, at about 11 pm, appellant/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 were caught red handed in the room of the appellant by the family members of respondent No.1/petitioner and room was locked by the villagers. Respondent No.1/petitioner (i.e. husband of the appellant) further stated before the Court below that on the pretext that she has to answer the nature's call, the appellant/respondent No.1 ran away from the house and on search of the room, respondent No. 2 was found inside the bed box. It is also alleged in the petition that after the aforesaid incident, appellant/respondent No.1 remained with respondent No.2 for 6-7 days. In the aforesaid background, the respondent No.1/petitioner alleged that cruelty was practised by the appellant/respondent No.1 on him and that is why, he preferred aforesaid petition, praying therein for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.

(3.) The appellant herein, by way of filing reply to the petition refuted the aforesaid claim of the respondent No.1/petitioner) and specifically denied the allegation of her illicit relations with respondent No.2. She further submitted that her mother-in-law is suffering from paralytic disease and at one occasion, her father-in-law tried to fulfil his sexual desire with her and thereafter, she was compelled to file petition, which was subsequently compromised and the respondent No.1/petitioner had agreed to provide separate rented accommodation to her. With the aforesaid contentions/submissions, the respondents (i.e. the appellant as respondent No.1 before the Court below and respondent No. 2 Jeet Kumar), sought dismissal of the petition filed by respondent No.1/petitioner, for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. Learned court below on the basis of pleadings adduced on record by the parties, framed following issues:-