VEDPRAKASH SAINI S/O SHRI PRABHATI LAL SAINI Vs. SMT. SUDHA DEVI W/O SHRI VED PRAKASH SAINI AND D/O SHRI SITARAM CHOBDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment passed by Family Court, Jhunjhunu dated 05.08.2017, whereby Family Court, Jhunjhunu has decreed divorce petition preferred by plaintiff-respondent Vedprakash Saini under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, dissolving the marriage between disputing couple.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent has pleaded that appellant Smt. Sudha Devi and respondent Vedprakash Saini solemnized their marriage on 01.12.2002, defendant-appellant did not yield to cohabit and was sarcastic by taunting that he was not perfect of height and lacked perfect personality, this was objected by the respondent and he tried to convince defendant that physical stature was irrelevant for marital relations but behaviour of Smt. Sudha did not change, she would often leave to stay with her parental home, on 05.03.2005 plaintiff-respondent got selected in third Grade teacher, after selection he went to fetch her and brought her on 15.03.2005 to join matrimonial consortium, after staying for five days, she left asserting that Village 'Paunk' was a rural area, subsequently on behest of plaintiff-respondent, she got employed with same school as Vidhyrthi Mitra, where she served for three to four months but kept insulting plaintiff-respondent, three to four months later, she abandoned service and came back to her parental home at Nawalgarh, despite attempts, she did not join matrimonial consortium of plaintiff-respondent, it has been further pleaded that on 10.01.2011, when plaintiff got promoted to Senior Teacher Grade-Ist, he went to fetch her, she came along but did not permit to have physical relations and was sarcastic by saying that plaintiff was short of height, being dwarf. On 17.07.2011 defendant-appellant declined to live together and threatened to re-marry and has further made a prayer for annulment of marriage.

(3.) Defendant-appellant rebutting pleadings has countered that defendant-appellant never went to her parental home without consent of plaintiff-respondent rather plaintiff-respondent misbehaved and harassed her and made dowry demands, he would rebuke her and even took away entire salary, which was earned by the defendant-appellant having employed as a Vidyarthi Mitra, even machination was forged to eliminate defendant-appellant, overhearing and sensing it, she somehow managed to come back to her parental home to secure herself, allegations levelled against the defendant are baseless, she was maltreated by her in-laws, even a plan was made to kill her, which she overheard, she is very much agreeable to join matrimonial consortium.