RAJNEESH RAJPUROHIT Vs. SAVITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Add1. District judge No. 1, Bikaner, whereby the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1 Bikaner vide order dated 8-7-2005 decided the issue nos. 2 to 8 in the petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act and refused to dismiss the petition of the non-petitioner for grant of maintenance.

(2.) THE facts leading to preferring this revision petition by the petitioner husband of the non-petitioner No. 1 and father of the non-petitioner No. 2 are that the marriage of the petitioner with non-petitioner No. 1 was solemnized on 27-4-1996 at Bikaner. Out of wedlock, one son-non-petitioner No. 2 born. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's father was reformist, in favour of simple marriage and was against taking dowry. The petitioner's father was also of the view that the marriage should be solemnized without any show. The non-petitioner no. 1 's father approached petitioner's father in the month of April, 1996 and after obtaining assurance of secrecy, told the petitioner's father that because of financial constraints, he can solemnize his daughter's marriage in minimum expenditure. The petitioner's father, who was reformist, decided to send the Barat of the petitioner in one car only and did so and there was no pomp and show of any type in the marriage of the petitioner. The marriage was solemnized without dowry. At the time of marriage, non-petitioner No. 1 was student of ll. B. First year and she pursued her studies of law of First Year and Second year as regular student, but when she failed in the second year LL. B. Course, she was allowed to pursue her study as Ex-student from the residence of petitioner's father. For this purpose, the non-petitioner used to go to the college from petitioner's father's house by petitioners father's car by travelling 12 kms. The non-petitioner was also availing all comforts in the matrimonial house including the telephone facilities etc. The non-petitioner, after failing in completing law education, in the year 1898, she insisted for joining M. A. in Music. For this purpose, she insisted that she will live with one Ram Chandra Goyall at Prabhu Kunj, Second Polo, Jodhpur. When this request was not accepted then non-petitioner No. 1 threatened that she will involve the petitioner and his father in litigation. However, because of persuasion of the petitioner and his father, who was also advocate, the non-petitioner lived in her matrimonial house, gave examination of ll. B. Second Year course and within one week thereafter, she called her brother and left for her parents' house at Bikaner and since then she did not come back. According to the petitioner, non petitioner No. 1 gave her LL B. Final year examination in the year 1999-2000 by living in the house of above mentioned Ram Chandra Goyal against the wishes of the petitioner and his family members. According to the petitioner, the non-petitioner committed grave cruelty against him and his family members.

(3.) THE non-petitioner's case was that she was subjected to grave cruelty by the petitioner and she was beaten by the petitioner and his family members. She was turned out from her matrimonial house in the month of April, 1999 and since then the non-petitioner is residing with her father. Non-petitioner No. 1, on the ground of cruelty and desertion, submitted a divorce petition in the court of the District Judge, Bikaner on 26-5-2001.