LAKSHMI Vs. MUKESH MORDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMONG the Hindus marriage is supposed to last for seven lives. But at times, a marriage barely survives seven years. What is hoped to be a blissful existence quickly turns into a bitter experience for the young couple. But, c'est la vie! (Such is life!) The appellant-wife is challenging the judgment dated 12. 7. 2006 passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby the learned Judge has granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent husband under Section 13 (1) (a) and Section 13 (1) (1) (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred to as "the Act", for short ).

(2.) THE appellant and the respondent (henceforth to be referred to as "the wife and the husband" respectively, for short) have narrated two different and contrary sets of facts, which need to be dealt with in detail. According to both the parties, their marriage was solemnized on 22. 2. 2002, in Jaipur, in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites. While the husband was the son of an ex-M. L. A. , who was also a State Minister, the wife was the daughter of a retired higher judicial officer (the father having retired as a District Judge ). While the husband hails from Sikar, the wife comes from a small town, Neem-ka-Thana in Sikar district. While the wife has completed LL. B. , the husband has a lesser degree than the wife. According to the husband, he had not only accepted Rs. 1/- by way of dowry, but also the entire expenses of the marriage was borne by his father. THE husband further alleged that immediately after the marriage when the couple returned to the matrimonial home in Sikar, the wife refused to observe any of the marriage ceremonies, such as worshiping the family deity, the unbinding of the sacred thread, which is tied on the wrist of the newly wedded couple. When she was asked to perform these ceremonies, she refused to do so. For, according to her, such ceremonies were antiquated-they had no meaning for her. Before the gathering of the people, she also derided the husband as being ill educated and as being superstitious in nature. Because of her blunt comments, the husband felt humiliated before his relatives. Further, according to the husband, on the very first night, the wife refused to allow him to have any physical relationship with her until and unless he fulfilled five demands of hers. According to him, the first demand was that he should deposit Rs. 20,00,000/- in an FDR in her name. Secondly, that instead of his living with his parents in Jaipur, he should live with her either at Udaipur or Rajsamand, where the family owned certain marble mines. Thirdly, he should make her a partner in the family business while granting her 40% of the profit of the partnership. Fourthly, he should buy her parents a plot at Jaipur. And fifthly, he should live according to her parents' wishes. She also told him that in case he does not fulfill her demands, he would have to face grave consequences. He tried to explain to her that since there are only three brothers in the family, as it is, he would be entitled to one-third share in the family property. Moreover, he tried to explain to her that her duty as a daughter-in-law is to look after the welfare of the family, and to gain the love and affection of the family members. But, instead of understanding his logic, the wife told him that she would not have any physical relationship with him, until and unless her demands are fulfilled. She further told him that she is not worried about the politician or about the police as such people have always stood before her father in a humble position. According to the husband, he was, indeed, shocked and dismayed to hear such things from the wife on the very first night. He further claimed that on the next day, he told his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) as to what had transpired at night. He further alleged that two days later when he took the wife back to her parental place, he was given a separate room away from the wife. Even at night, the wife did not come into his room to establish any physical relationship. Hoping that things would improve, although the marriage was not consummated till then, he still brought his wife back to the matrimonial home. Though on their way back to Jaipur he tried to explain things to her, her behaviour did not change at all : the moment they reached home, the wife went inside the bedroom and locked herself. She refused to interact with the family and to do anything for the family. Moreover, he alleged that on 28. 2. 2002 the wife's brother along with a friend of the wife's father came to the matrimonial home to take away the wife. THE wife packed her expensive Saris and her gold jewelleries and left the matrimonial home. For three months, the wife did not come back. When the husband contacted his father-in-law, he told the husband that his daughter will go back only after finishing her LL. B. Examination. In July, he again contacted his father-in-law, who told him that he would consult his wife and his daughter and would inform him about the date of daughter's departure. But, the father-in-law never called back. Whenever the husband would call his in-laws' place, even the mother-in-law repeated the five demands made by the wife on the first night. According to him, once the wife picked up the phone, he asked her to come back. But, she refused to do so until her demands were met. She further told him that she could make his life hellish, if she wanted to. THEreupon, the husband's family sent a number of persons, including some retired Judges, in order to convince the wife to return to the matrimonial home. But, these efforts also failed. On 20. 3. 2005 the husband's father himself went to fetch the daughter-in-law. But, her parents refused to let her go. Instead, on 21. 3. 2005 the wife lodged a First Information Report, registered as FIR No. 89/2005 at the Police Station Neem-ka-Thana wherein she claimed that her husband and her in-laws were torturing her for dowry and that they have kept her "stridhan" (property belonging to the wife ). Because of the FIR, the husband and his family members had to seek bail from this Court. Subsequently, the wife and her parents not only called press conferences, but also published articles in the Press making derogatory comments about the husband's father and his family. Since the husband's father was a well-known politician, naturally the Press Conferences and the Press Report caused him both social and political embarrassment. Since the wife had left the matrimonial home on 28. 2. 2002, without any sufficient cause, and since her behaviour had been cruel towards the husband, the husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion before the District Judge, Jhunjhunu.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mrs. Shandilya has relied upon a large number of case laws to argue that while considering the grant of permanent alimony, the court should consider the family status of the parties, the life style of the parties and the present and the future needs of the wife. According to her, the husband comes from an economically effluent family. He and his family members are owners of marble mines and have other businesses to their credit. Furthermore, desertion by the wife does not disentitle her from the permanent alimony. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Gopal Lal Bolya vs. Gyatri Devi (II (1989) DMC 28 (DB) ). Thus, even if the wife has deserted the husband, even then she is entitled to permanent alimony.