Delhi District Court
Smt. Meena Bhatia W/O Shri Ravi Nandan ... vs Shri Ravi Nandan Bhatia S/O Late ... on 26 July, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH.UMED SINGH GREWAL :
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-02(NORTH) : DELHI
HMA No. 954/06
Smt. Meena Bhatia W/o Shri Ravi Nandan Bhatia,
R/o S-384, 1st Floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi-48.
..... Petitioner
Versus
Shri Ravi Nandan Bhatia S/o Late Sikandar Bhatia,
R/o Lane-B, Rajinder Nagar, Civil Lines, Moradabad, UP
Also at : M/s R.N. Bhatia Exports,
70-A/11 Baradari, Moradabad-244001, UP.
..... Respondent
Date of Institution: 31.05.2006
Judgment reserved on: 26.07.2010
Date of Judgment: 26.07.2010
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner/wife filed this petition under section13(1) (i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against husband/respondent on the ground of cruelty for dissolution of marriage which was solemnized according to Hindu rites, rituals, customs and ceremonies at Moradabad, UP on 06.10.1976. Two children - one son and one daughter were born out of this wedlock on Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
217.07.1977 and 16.08.1979 respectively.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on the day of the marriage, petitioner found that respondent was very conservative and suspicious in nature. He did not allow her to talk to any male person and used to abuse her in filthy language and even assaulted physically in the presence of others, if she was ever found talking to any male person, whoever he may be. She was only 16 years of age at the time of marriage and whenever she wanted to go to Amritsar to see her parents, he used to abuse her in the foulest possible language with false accusation that she must have boy friend there whom she wanted to see. Thus, she was not allowed to go to her parents house by the respondent. Only occasionally he used to take her to Amritsar for a day and escorted her back to Muradabad. Even she did not use to talk to respondent regarding Amritsar in fear because he was very suspicious. He was habitual in making imputation against her character without any foundation but for his suspicious nature. He did not change his nature even after the birth of the son and daughter but continued to insult and humiliate her in the presence of his friends and relatives. She had to bear all this Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
3inhuman behaviour and torture of the respondent in order to bring up children and to keep matrimonial life alive.
3. In 1979, she along with respondent went to Moradabad to attend birthday party of her friend's daughter. There she was also humiliated in the presence of her friend and others and he left the party because she wished her friend's husband. They went to Amritsar to attend the marriage ceremony of her sister. There also he might have seen her talking to some male relatives. Then he abused her in the presence of her friend and relatives, created a scene and came back to Moradabad without telling her. He did not allow her to do any job. Whenever she wanted to do some job, he used to abuse in filthy language and used to say that he would not allow her to make love with outsiders. Respondent used to accuse petitioner having illicit relations with Mazhar who was their family friend.
4. Petitioner further accused that respondent is habitual drunker and physically assaulted her in the presence of children under the influence of liquor. While returning from Amritsar to Moradabad on 02.06.2002, there was an accident Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
4near BEAS in which petitioner's daughter was injured seriously and she was operated upon in Amritsar. Respondent left the car leaving petitioner and daughter in injured condition for Moradabad and next day to USA on a business tour. Petitioner requested respondent in October, 2003 to clear a distress warrant of Rs.1,10,000/-, issued by Tehsildar, Moradabad but he proceeded to USA and asked her to make good the payment by taking loan from Mazhar. Till 2005, relations between them deteriorated to such an extent that it was not possible for them to live together and consequently respondent purchased a flat for petitioner and children in Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi in her name on 05.05.2006. They shifted there only on 30.11.2005 after the marriage of son on 28.11.2005. Petitioner alleges that respondent was so callus, irresponsible and negligent towards children that he did not spend a single penny in son's marriage. He came to Delhi on 28.02.2006 and threatened petitioner in a filthy language for which a complaint was lodged. He again returned on 27.03.2006 in night and tried to abuse her with baseball bat. He broke window panes and damaged flat for which matter was reported to the police. In order to grab Greater Kailash flat, he filed a suit against her, son and daughter in the court of Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
5Ms. R. Kirannath, Ld. ADJ, Delhi.
5. Respondent filed written statement taking objection that petitioner was of 18 years of age at the time of marriage. He further stated that she was free to travel around wherever she wanted without any restriction or objections. He never suspected that she was having a boy friend in Amritsar. He also denied insult or humiliation to petitioner. He came out with a story that petitioner herself did not want to do any job because she loved to socialize by attending kitty parties and get togethers. About Mazhar, he stated that he was not a family friend but his daughter's friend who used to embark even the bedroom and this action of Mazhar was objected by him several times. He expressed his hatred towards Mazhar, saying that he used to take his daughter outside even at odd hours in the night against his advice. About the accident near BEAS, respondent stated that he was also injured in the said accident and he stayed in Amritsar for two days. He was very much present when his daughter was receiving stitches. He denied that his daughter was operated upon in Amritsar. He admitted that he flew to USA on 13.06.2002 but when the daughter had come to the home. About the distress warrant, Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
6he stated that it was a case against her mother which was decreed exparte on 23.09.2002, whereas his mother had expired on 29.10.1999. That order was challenged on 11.11.2002 in the court of Additional District Magistrate (Establishment), Moradabad, UP and consequently the distress warrants were quashed vide order, dated 16.12.2002. He denied that he was callus or irresponsible towards children. He sent daughter Binish Bhatia to stay in South Delhi Polytechnic where she stayed in the hostel for two hours. He wanted to shift to New Delhi along with petitioner and children and that is why he sold his ancestral house in Model Town, Delhi and purchased a flat in Greater Kailash-I where he, petitioner and children started residing much before 30.11.2005. The family had gone to Moradabad on 28.11.2005 in order to solemnize marriage of the son for which expenses were borne by him. He admitted that he has filed a suit against petitioner and children for declaration regarding flat of Greater Kailash.
6. Petitioner filed replication denying the allegations leveled by respondent in written statement. She reaffirmed and reasserted the contents of the petition.
Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
77. Following issues were framed on 07.01.2008 :-
1. Whether respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty after the solemnization of the marriage? OPP.
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage? OPP.
3. Relief
8. Petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW-1 by tendering affidavit in evidence as PW-1/A. She also relied upon following documents :-
Mark-A Complaint, dated 28.02.2006 to SHO PS Greater Kailash-I. Mark-B Complaint, dated 27.03.2006 to SHO PS Greater Kailash-I
9. Her daughter supported her as PW-2.
10. After tendering affidavit in evidence, PW-2 did not appear for cross-examination. She was awaited on two dates but did not come forward and hence petitioner's opportunity to lead further evidence was closed on 22.01.2010. So affidavit in evidence of PW-2 cannot be read.
11. Respondent was awaited for several dates to Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
8conclude the cross-examination of PW-1/Meena Bhatia/petitioner but he could not complete and hence his right to further cross-examine PW-1 was closed on 18.03.2009.
12. Several opportunities were granted to respondent to lead evidence and make payment of maintenance. But he did not clear the arrear and also did not lead evidence and in these circumstances, respondent's evidence was closed on 22.04.2010.
ISSUE NO. 113. Petitioner deposed that respondent is a person of suspicious nature who used to doubt her whenever she talked to any male. He put restrictions around her to visit parental home at Amritsar saying that she may be having a boy friend there. Whenever she went there, he used to accompany her. He saw her taking to her friend's husband on the occasion of her friend's daughter's birthday party at Moradabdd in 1979 and he reacted sharply by leaving the party. There was a marriage ceremony of her sister in Amritsar. There he saw her talking to a male relative. He created a scene and returned to Moradabad without telling the petitioner. He did not allow Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
9petitioner to do any job because he did not want her friendly with outsiders. He accused her having illicit relations with Mazhar who was their family friend. Also he was the friend of their daughter. He used to beat petitioner under the influence of liquor to which he was addicted. In the cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that she was only 10th class passed. But she also deposed that she was a life insurance agent and also used to teach children. All these facts suggest that she was capable of doing a job but respondent did not allow her.
14. Petitioner next deposed that she along with respondent and children, while returning to Moradabad from Amritsar on 02.06.2010, met with an accident near BEAS in which their daughter was injured seriously. First aid was given at BEAS itself and later shifted to a nursing home at Amritsar where she was operated. Despite such being the magnanimity of the accident, respondent left all in lurch on the road and flew to USA on the next day. Regarding this allegation, respondent had taken the plea in written statement that he stayed at Amritsar for two days after accident and went to USA on business tour only after the return of the family at Moradabad. However, he did not appear in the witness box to support his Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
10contention.
15. Respondent also did not clear the distress warrants in October, 2003 of Rs.1,10,000/- issued by Tehsildar, Moradabad. Instead, he asked petitioner to take loan from Mazhar to clear the warrants. His version in written statement is that the distress warrants pertained to his mother's case obtained against her in an exparte decree, passed on 23.09.2002, whereas his mother had expired long ago on 29.10.1999. Distress warrants were quashed by the court of Additional District Magistrate vide order, dated 16.12.2002 on his representation, dated 11.11.2002. But he did not dare to stand in the witness box to say anything about this contention.
16. Petitioner further deposed that relation between them became all time low in 2005 and that is why he purchased a flat in her name on 05.05.2005 but petitioner and children could shift their only on 30.11.2005 after the marriage of parties' son on 28.11.2005. She further alleged that respondent is so negligent and irresponsible towards children that he did not spend a single penny in the marriage of the son. He wanted her and the children out of the flat and in Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
11pursuance of such desire, he visited the flat on 28.02.2006 to threat her for which complaint, Mark-A was lodged before the police. Similar act was repeated on 27.03.2006 and the complaint, Mark-B was made to the police. In the end, she deposed that respondent has filed a civil suit for declaration regarding the said flat in order to grab it. Respondent admitted in written statement that he has filed such a suit because it was purchased in the name of the petitioner from his own funds.
17. PW-1 was not cross-examined on the above said material points. Despite opportunity, respondent did not appear in the witness box in order to support his contentions in written statement. Counsel for petitioner relied upon Rajinder Singh Joon Vs. Tarawati, AIR 1980 Delhi 213. In the cited case, respondent did not take care of the injured petitioner in the hospital and it was held that it amounts to cruelty. In the present case also, respondent did not take care of the injured petitioner and his daughter. He left them in injured condition at BEAS and flew to USA. So it covers petitioner's case squarely. Her counsel also relied upon Umawanti Vs. Arjan Dev, AIR 1995 Punjab & Haryana 312 to say that petitioner is Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
12entitled to a decree of divorce where respondent declines to enter the witness box to rebut the allegations of abnormal behaviour and different way of life. In the present case also, respondent did not appear in the witness box.
18. Order, dated 22.04.2010 suggests that Rs.1,10,000/- are due towards respondent as arrears of maintenance. He did not pay a single penny thereafter. Petitioner's counsel placed on record, today, an order, dated 21.05.2010, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM (M) 1492/2007, between the same parties, observing that respondent (petitioner in the Hon'ble High Court) has refused to make payment of arrears of maintenance as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court on different dates. Ultimately, respondent's petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide that order. Petitioner's counsel argued that non-payment of maintenance by respondent is a wrong as per Section 23 of Hindu Marriage Act and relied upon Hira Chand Sriniwas Managaonkar Vs. Sunanda (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases
125. In the present case also, respondent is also not making payment and thus, his act is covered U/s 23 of the Act.
Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
1319. Taking into account all the above facts, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 220. As issue no. 1 has already been decided in favour of the petitioner, she is entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage.
ISSUE NO. 321. Consequent to decisions on issue nos. 1 and 2, marriage between petitioner/Meena Bhatia and respondent/Ravi Nandan Bhatia is dissolved on the ground of cruelty U/s 13-1(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act without costs.
22. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL) (Announced today i.e. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE :
on 26.07.2010) DELHI
Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....
14
26.07.2010 (At 04.00 p.m.)
Present : None
None appeared on behalf of respondent to argue the case.
Vide separate judgment even dated, marriage between petitioner/Meena Bhatia and respondent/Ravi Nandan Bhatia is dissolved on the ground of cruelty U/s 13-1(i-
a) of Hindu Marriage Act without costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE :
DELHI Meena Bhatia v Ravi Nandan Bhatia Contd....