ANITA RUBY PAUL Vs. SANDEEP PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Anita Ruby Paul and the Opposite party No. 1, Sandeep Paul, both the Christians and they were married to each other on negotiation of both the families and marriage was solemnised on 22.2.1990 at All Saints Church Chaibasa. At the time of marriage, the petitioner Anita Ruby Paul was 25 years of old while the respondent No. 1 Sandeep Paul was 26 years of age. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of marriage, the petitioner's parents spent a huge amount and gifted many domestic articles for her use in Sasural, such as Double Bed, Dressing Table, Big Iron Trunk, Television, Mixy, Gas Oven, Dinner set and clothes etc. After the marriage, the petitioner went to her Sasural situated at Lucknow alongwith all her articles as mentioned above on 24.2.1990. Over had above the above articles, it is stated that the petitioner was given a cash of Rs, 20, 000/- to purchase Godrej Steel Almirah, Refrigerator and Sofa Set and the said cash was taken away by Opposite party No. 1, but the articles were never purchased. The started living together as husband and wife in the Sasural of the petitioner at Lucknow in the joint family alongwith parents of the O.P. No. 1. But soon after the petitioner was meeted with torture and cruelty by O.P. No. 1. It is her allegation that she was assaulted even by fist and slaps not only by her husband, O.P. No. 1 but also by his father and mother, 11.3.1990 on the plea of bringing a cash of Rs. 50, 000/- from her parents' house. In course of conjugal life, the petitioner could detect that her husband was a man of bad character. He assaulted one H.K. Harjai, the Area Manager of his Company.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the Opposite party No. 1, all the allegations brought by the petitioner have been denied. Regarding gift of cast and other utensils and Streedhan Property as alleged in the petition have been denied. According to the Opposite party No. 1, from the very beginning of the marriage the petitioner was not maintaining peaceful conjugal life as she was ; fashionable lady, she was not aggreable to stay in the joint family of the Opposite party No. 1. The allegation of termination of pregnancy by Opposite party No. 1 and his parents have been totally denied. It is further stated the at the pressure of the petitioner, the Opposite party No. 1 had to separate himself from his joint family and to live in a rented house near the house o Ramjee Tiwary, brother-in-law of the petitioner and when the Opposite part; No. 1 was out of the station, all of a sudden, the petitioner left the house with all belongings in the rented house and as such after coming back from his duty when the Opposite party No. 1 learnt so he filed criminal case against the petitioner, which is now pending before the Magisterial Court at Lucknow. The Opposite party No. 1 further contention is that at the house of Ramjee Tiwary; the petitioner unnecessarily broked out with the Opposite party No. 1 on 19th October, 1991 and in tense mood while the Opposite party No. 1 was returning home he met with Scooter accident as a result of which he was seriously injured and after prolonged treatment, although, he could survive but his face was; totally disfigured and because of such disfiguration, the petitioner was total unagreeable to lead conjugal life with the Opposite party No. 1 as she wanted a handsome partner for her life and practically after 1991 the petitioner has withdrawn wilfully from the society of the Opposite party No. 1 and staying at her parents house at her own sweet will, the Opposite party No. 1 made several attempts to bring her back to the matrimonial home but all his attempts proved futile. The allegation of adultery has been vehemently denied from the side of the Opposite party No. 1 and it is stated that only for making a ground of divorce, this story of adultery has been made out, which is nothing but a myth. There is no existence of any Seema Srivastava in reality and a fictitious name has been put by the petitioner for the purpose of bringing he allegation.

(3.) Notices were issued to Opposite party No. 2 Seema Srivashtva but her whereabouts could not be found and as such the suit proceeded .against her ex parte.