PRAMILA BHATIA Vs. VIJAY KUMAR BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) On a petition filed by the respondent under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the District and Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, granted the decree for divorce. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-non-petitioner, has filed this appeal.

(3.) According to the averment made in the petition, the marriage between the parties was celebrated on 15-12-1985 according to Hindu rites at Sri Ganganagar. After marriage, the appellant gave birth to a daughter Shobhna who was about 7 years of age on the date of the filing of the petition. The respondent in his petition, prayed for the decree for divorce under S. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. It was alleged in the petition that the respondent's mother was the owner of house No. 5A/38 situated at Jawahar Nagar and the appellant asked the respondent's mother to transfer the house to her and threatened that if the house was not transferred to her, a report would be lodged at the Police Station, Sri Ganganagar alleging cruelty and dowry. The house was constructed by the respondent's mother by spending her hard earned money. On 18-7-1986, the respondent went to Jaipur in order to obtain training. He returned from Jaipur on 7-1-1987. On his return, he came to know that in his absence the appellant-non-petitioner, with the help of her father Bhoor Singh and some others, forcibly entered into house No. 5A/38 situated at Jawaharnagar in which the respondent's parents were residing and after giving beating to the respondent's parents and terrifying them turned them out of the house and unlawfully occupied the house. This incident occurred sometime in January 1987 before the respondent returned from Jaipur. As a consequence of the above incident, the respondent's parents suffered physical and mental pain and they started residing in a quarter constructed in the hospital where respondent's mother was serving. After returning from Jaipur, respondent contacted the appellant-non-petitioner. She made a false statement before him to the effect that his parents had gone away to the quarter situated in hospital campus after giving the beating to her parents. On the same day, the respondent with some well-wishers went to the house of his mother and found that the appellant-non-petitioner's father Bhoor Singh and his helpers were there. They misbehaved with the respondent, assaulted him and turned him out of the house. The appellant non-petitioner was present at that time but she did not make any protest against the conduct of his father. It was also alleged in the petition filed by the respondent that on 6-2-1987, the appellant-non-petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. That petition was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar by order dated 23-12-1989. A revision petition was filed in the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2 and the revision petition was dismissed by the Additional District Judge No. 2 by order dated 10-10-1991. it was alleged by the respondent that in her application the appellant-non-petitioner, with a view to bring bad name to the appellant and his parents made a false allegation to the effect that the petitioner and his parents used to harass with the object of forcing her to bring money from her parents and it was also falsely alleged by her that she had brought a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from her father and that a further sum of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded from her. These allegations, according to the averments made in the petition filed by the respondent were false. It was also alleged in the petition that the appellant-non-petitioner filed a Civil Suit No. 77/87 in the Court of the Munsif, Sri Ganganagar. The suit was decreed on 6-2-1991 and an appeal was filed in the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar against the decree passed by the Munsif, Sri Ganganagar. In appeal, the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, set aside the decree passed by the Munsif and allowed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 20-5-1994. When the respondent's mother Kamla Devi filed a suit for recovering the possession of the house No. 5A/38 belonging to her, an objection as to the deficiency of the Court-fee was raised by the appellant-non-petitioner and, therefore, a Court-fee of Rs. 3945/- was paid. The suit was ultimately decreed on 5-8-1993 and an appeal against that decree is pending before the High Court. The case set up by the respondent in his petition under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was that the appellant-non-petitioner, is guilty of committing cruelty and that he is entitled to a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty.