SANDEEP KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. NAMRATA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the parties and perused the records of this case.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2010 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Darbhanga in Matrimonial Case No. 22 of 2005 by which the court below has allowed the divorce petition of the respondent and has dissolved the marriage of respondent and the appellant. The petitioner respondent instituted Matrimonial Case No. 22/2005 for grant of a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against her husband Sandeep Kumar Agarwal, i.e., opposite party appellant.

(3.) In her petition for dissolution of marriage filed under Section 13 of the Act the Plaintiff-respondent has stated that the parties to the petition were married on 3.12.1992 and had three children from the wedlock. Two out of the three children are daughters, namely, Shivani born on 5.10.1993 and Smriti born on 12.12.1996 and one is son, namely, Ayushman born on 3.10.2002. In the petition the petitioner-plaintiff-respondent has claimed that, few days after coming to her matrimonial house after marriage, she came to know that her husband was a habitual drunkard and occasionally use to come late at night and had accepted that he had got illicit connection with some lady also. She further alleges that after two years of marriage her husband started taking money from her for fulfilling his requirements and even sold one pair of her gold kangan which was given by her father. It is further stated that, about 3 1/2 years before the filing of the matrimonial case, the firm of the husband was locked by the financer from whom money was borrowed and the same was put to auction sale also. Thereafter, she was asked to bring at least six lacs from her father to meet the expenses, however, her father could not manage the amount. The petitioner, thereafter, was put to brutal assault and was asked to leave Gorakhpur. It was also complained that the articles given by her father at the time of marriage were not satisfactory. The petitioner respondent tried her best to tolerate and accept the prevailing situation and condition to the best of her ability and capacity . However, she felt that the behaviour of her husband and his family members was changed and she was no more acceptable to them. Somehow the aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of her parents and then her father tried to assess the situation on telephone but he could not succeed as she was not allowed to talk to her parents. Even her husband and other family members did not talk to her parents. She also alleges that sometimes food was also not allowed to be given to her and sometimes the food given was of such quality that the same was not worth eating. She was not allowed to come out from the home and talk to any body subjecting her to mental tension and agony. It is claimed that her father came to Gorakhpur in the year 2000 and discussed the matter with her. The petitioner respondent conveyed her father regarding cruelty and mental torture by the husband and his family members. She further claims that the ornaments and other articles given by her parents and relations were also taken away from her and she was not allowed to use them. Cruelty went to such an extent that she was not even allowed to sleep on bed rather she was compelled to sleep on the floor of the bedroom. However, her father advised her to tolerate and try to normalize the situation and also requested his Samadhi and others to maintain cordial relationship. But situation became even worse. Some how the respondent managed to inform the same to her parents who were residing at Darbhanga. On getting information, the father of the petitioner respondent reached Gorakhpur and stayed there for four days. However, when he was assured that everything would be normalized in future, he requested his Samadhi to allow her to go to Darbhanga for change of place and as such the petitioner came to her Naihar with her children on 1.10.2001 and remained at Darbhanga for about three months. It is claimed that none from her matrimonial house came to meet her or even talked to her during her stay at Darbhanga. Ultimately, the father of the petitioner, with the consent of his Samadhi again sent the petitioner respondent to her matrimonial house on 16.1.2002 where, for few days, the behaviour of the family members including her husband remained normal but just after 15 days they again resorted to cruel behaviour. Her father again came with two respectable persons of Darbhanga and negotiated with the family members of the appellant. However, he was also humiliated by her husband and father-in-law. They told that they have broken relationship and would not allow the petitioner respondent to remain at Gorakhpur and directed them to take her back. On such a situation having arrived, the petitioner respondent came back to her Naihar on 19.10.2003 and since then she is residing at her parents? place along with her children. During the stay of the petitioner - respondent at Darbhanga, appellant husband visited Darbhanga on 15.3.2004 and stayed there for five days. However, abruptly without giving any information again went to Gorakhpur and, thereafter, they did not have any contact with each other. She has sought a decree of divorce on ground of cruelty as well as desertion.