Delhi District Court
Sidharth Jain S/O Major B.K. Singh vs Vandana Aggarwal W/O Sh. Siddharth Jain on 15 May, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL : ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE02(NORTH)/TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
HMA NO. 37/06
Sidharth Jain S/o Major B.K. Singh,
R/o Flat No. J1/9, Khirki Extn., Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi ..... Petitioner
Versus
Vandana Aggarwal W/o Sh. Siddharth Jain,
D/o Shri V.K. Aggarwal, R/o Flat No. 785,
SectorA, PocketC, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi ..... Respondent
Date of institution : 03.01.2006
Judgment reserved on : 04.05.2010
Date of Judgment: 15.05.2010
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner/husband filed this petition against wife/respondent U/s 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty for dissolution of marriage which was solemnized on 23.11.2004 at Pieces Garden, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi according to Hindu rites, ceremonies and customs. One male child, Vardhman was born on 07.12.2005.
Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
2
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent did not cooperate petitioner's family in performing the rituals, saying that she did not believe in all that. She insulted Mrs. and Mr. V.K. Kandari on 25.11.2004 on the occasion of Muh Dikhai ceremony and threw their gifts down. She refused to consummate marriage on 24.11.2004, saying that the marriage was held against her wishes and she never liked petitioner as she wanted to marry some other person. It was consummated on 30.11.2004 only when her condition of arranging separate accommodation was accepted. As per custom, she was required to enter the kitchen first time and prepare food but she refused and prepared only tea after great persuasion. Petitioner's father gave her shagun of Rs.1,100/ which was thrown, uttering that she was neither beggar nor a cook. She did not prepare food or tea in the absence of the petitioner's parents and all these activities were done by petitioner himself. She refused to eat food or any other thing prepared by petitioner's mother, saying that she wanted to severe all kinds of relations from them. He was compelled to bring food as well as breakfast from market and whenever he requested her to take home made food, she used to threat that she would ask her father to bring food from her parental home.
Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
3
3. Petitioner alleges that respondent refused to identify his sister Mrs. Anupama Goel and her husband Mr. Vineet Goel on 13.02.2005 when they had come to his house. She did not open door for half an hour and did not ask even for a glass of water. She refused to prepare tea for petitioner's family friends' on 08.03.2005, saying that she was not their servant. She also uttered that she was a lady of free mind and could not survive in the four walls of the house. She had also refused to follow the instruction of her seniors and boss during her service. She compelled petitioner in June, 2005 to handover all jewellery even belonging to him and his family members to her parents. On his refusal, she threatened to commit suicide. Sensing that she may execute the threat, jewellery was given to her which she kept in a locker, maintained in Punjab National Bank, Bhikaji Cama Place though a locker was available in Indian Overseas Bank situated near his house. There was a quarrel between them on 10.06.2005 on the point of providing her separate luxurious accommodation near to her parents' house. When petitioner stated that his parents shall feel alone because he was the lone son, respondent tried to consume some poisonous tablet but was saved due to petitioner's timely intervention. She again Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
4quarreled with him on 11.06.2005 and told that she would not reside with petitioner and his family members. When he tried to persuade her, she hit him with a slipper and left for parental home. Fearing that she may drive the car rashly, he accompanied her. His parents also went to her parental home after half an hour to inquire her well being. But they were insulted by her and her parents. He arranged separate accommodation for respondent near his house but she refused to live therein and insisted for other house near her parental home. In these circumstances, flat no. 4190, SectorB, Pocket 5 and 6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi was taken on rent @ Rs.8,000/ per month. But she refused to reside there also and insisted to transfer his mother's car in her name and to pay back the housing loan to HDFC Bank in lump sum. Ultimately, they started residing together in that flat from 30.06.2005 onwards.
4. It is further averred that respondent invited the unfortunate event on 04.07.2005 from which he saved her. Though there was no foul play from his side but her parents wanted to encash the incident and demanded Rs. Three lacs in cash and insisted his father to sign some blank papers. This threat was Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
5communicated to the police by telegram by his father on 19.07.2005. He also applied for anticipatory bail which was disposed off with the direction to Investigating Officer to issue notice to him in case any FIR was registered. Later respondent and her father started threatening that they would make the statement to the police against petitioner regarding that incident and in this pressure, his father was made to sign some blank papers and some cash was also handed over to them. Thereafter statement was made from respondent's side to police that incident of 04.07.2005 was accidental and police closed the investigation.
5. It is submitted that respondent was discharged from hospital for burn injuries from 29.07.2005 and she straightway went to her parental home and since then she is residing there. She refused to give birth to the child at petitioner's house by terming him a beggar. Son was born on 07.12.2005 but no intimation was given to him. He came to know only on 11.12.2005 when he visited respondent's parental home but he was not allowed to see the face of the child. Her parents threatened to beat him, if he dared to visit again and also he would have to spend remaining life in jail, in a Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
6case of dowry and attempt to murder. Her father disclosed that respondent had decided to remarry with some rich person and shall settle abroad as divorce deed had already been prepared on the papers signed by petitioner blank. His effort for reconciliation on 27.12.2005 was also foiled by respondent and her parents and he was beaten and kicked. Lastly, it is stated that it is not possible for him to reside with respondent because it will be very unsafe as she can go to any extent to achieve and fulfill her malafide intention and ulterior motives.
6. Respondent filed written statement stating that petitioner had taken the flat at Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar on rent because he had differences with his father on several issues including unnecessary interference in his life. She went even to the extent that child Vardhman was named by petitioner himself after return from Nepal on 11.12.2005. She stated that she cannot dare and think of insulting petitioner's family members, friends and religious rituals because she belongs to orthodox business family having upper middle class background with good moral teachings. Ring ceremony was held on 20.06.2004 and marriage was Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
7solemnized on 23.11.2004 and during this interval of five months, they were dating occasionally. Had there been any person in her life, she would have never consented for ring or marriage ceremonies. About Muh Dikhai ceremony, she stated that it was held on 24.11.2004 and not on 25.11.2004 and so disrespect of Mrs. and Mr. Kandari does not arise at all. She stated that they had normal physical relations right from day one of the marriage. Prior to marriage, she was very well apprised of the place available at petitioner's home, consisting of four bedrooms, one drawingcum dinning room, one kitchen and front open space on the ground floor. So much space was sufficient for her and petitioner's family. It was petitioner who used to tell her that he would either shift to a rented accommodation to live independently or would get transferred to Mumbai where he had flat in Lokhandwala Compex.
7. Respondent denied that she did not cook food or prepare tea. She admitted that petitioner also used to cook food but only as a hobby after watching Sanjeev Kapoor's Khana Khazana show on TV. She was always under stress and tension on account of harsh nature of petitioner's father. Petitioner was also very miser.
Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
8He would pay pocket money of only Rs.3,000/ to Rs.3,500/ per month and that also by account payee cheque. She denied the incident of 13.12.2005 when petitioner's sister was allegedly disrespected. She submitted that she was at her parental home on that day. Her version is that she enjoyed the company of Mrs. Anupama Goel and she was the first person to donate her blood when she was struggling for life in Apollo Hospital in July, 2005. The bone of contention started from May, 2005 when she informed her motherinlaw of her being in the family way. Her fatherinlaw was overjoyed and asked to convey to her father for one Pukhraj gold ring. He had also demanded Rs. Two lacs in cash at the time of marriage for buying furniture and costly household electric gadgets. Petitioner's parents asked her in the first week of June, 2005 to bring Rs. Two lacs or she and respondent should leave matrimonial home before 30.06.2005. Keeping in view the behaviour and attitude of his parents, she asked them to return entire istridhan, jewellery etc. They returned the gold ornaments, gifts and other valuables and were deposited in a locker of Punjab National Bank, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi.
Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
9
8. Regarding separate accommodation, respondent replied that it was petitioner himself who had expressed desire to shift to a rented house because he was feeling humiliated by unwarranted and unreasonable interference by his parents in married life. Also he wanted to have a flat near to work place. In these circumstances, the flat at Vasant Kunj was taken on rent. In order to irritate her, petitioner's father started smoking excessively on 11.06.2005 taunted in filthy language which was heard even by neighbours. He rebuked even petitioner when he entered the house by calling respondent's parents as Kangley. She denied that she asked petitioner to transfer in her name the car of his mother. Her father had already given her a brand new Santro Car in marriage.
9. Both parties were turned out of the matrimonial home on 30.06.2005 and they moved to rented house at Vasant Kunj. About the incident of 04.07.2005, she stated that it was an unanticipated incident in their lives. In that incident, she suffered 35% burn injuries. They made statement to the police on 05.07.2005 voluntarily, saying that it was an accident upon which case was closed on 17.08.2005. Even respondent had admitted before police Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
10officials that that incident took place due to leakage of cooking gas in the kitchen and her clothes caught fire because she was not knowing the proper handling the gas burner. She went to her parental home after discharge from hospital on 29.07.2005 only on the asking of petitioner because relations between them (petitioner and his parents) were souring. He also resided with them till 27.12.2005. Her birthday was celebrated on 09.08.2005. She spent few nights with him in the rented house also. She started feeling labour pain on 06.12.2005 and hence immediately rang petitioner in office. He was very busy and scheduled to leave to Nepal for business tour on 07.12.2005 in the early hours. So he did not come and her parents took her to Mayfair Clinic where she delivered the child though the expected date of delivery was in January, 2006. Her father tried several times to contact petitioner to apprise of sudden development but he was not available on phone. Petitioner returned only on 11.12.2005 and named the child as Vardhman. She admitted that she used to call petitioner Motoo but in lighter vein. She also admitted that she called petitioner's parents beggar due to unending demand of money and Pukhraj gold ring.
Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
11
10. In replication, petitioner stated that burn injuries to respondent were the result of her attempt to suicide. It is mentioned that he and his father had acceded to the demand of respondent's father for terming the incident as accident because of apprehension that their default would lodge them in jail without any fault.
11. Following issues were framed on 08.03.2007 :
1. Whether respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty after solemnization of their marriage? OPP.
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to decree of dissolution of marriage? OPP.
3. Relief
12. Following witnesses appeared on behalf of the petitioner:
1. PW1 Petitioner himself
2. PW2 Mr. B.K. Singh, petitioner's father
3. PW3 Mr. P.P. Goel, Fatherinlaw of petitioner's sister
4. PW4 Mr. Amit Singh, petitioner's friend.
Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
12
13. Following witnesses appeared on behalf of respondent :
1. RW1 Respondent herself
2. RW2 Mr. V.K. Aggarwal, respondent's father ISSUE NO. 1
14. Petitioner's first allegation is that the marriage could not be consummated on the first day i.e. on 24.11.2004 because respondent stated that it was solemnized against her wishes and she never liked to marry him. She wanted to marry some other person. It was consummated only on 30.11.2004 when her condition of arranging separate accommodation was accepted. Respondent's version is that it consummated on the day of marriage itself. She deposed that she used to meet respondent regularly after ring ceremony for five months. Had any other person been in life, she would not have consented for marriage. Petitioner also admitted in crossexamination that they met 23 times after ring ceremony. It is also quite strange why petitioner did not disclose the factum of non consummation of marriage to his parents. It cannot be expected that a bride shall change mind suddenly and say in the first night that she did not want to marry her husband. Petitioner deposed that Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
13respondent refused to perform any rituals or customs, saying that she did not believe in all that rubbish. Respondent deposed that all these are allegations because she performed all the customs and rituals including Muh Dikhai ceremony, bowing before Jain Guru statue and visiting Jain temples. She even named some of the temples. Petitioner did not describe the rituals in which respondent did not participate. He alleged that respondent insulted Mrs. & Mr. V.K. Kandari on 25.11.2004 when they had come to perform the Rasham of Muh Dikhai and bless the couple. Respondent stated to them that she was an educated lady and how did they dare to call her beta. She also threw gifts brought by them uttering that such cheap gifts were never accepted even by servants in her parental family. Respondent's version is that Muh Dikhai ceremony was held on 24.11.2004 and not on 25.11.2004. She admitted that Mrs. & Mr. V.K. Kandari had come to the matrimonial home but they were duly respected. So the story of both parties on this point is divergent. Mrs. & Mr. V.K. Kandari were the only persons who could have cleared the dark clouds over this controversy. They did not appear in the witness box. So petitioner failed to prove that Kandari couple were disrespected by respondent.
Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
14
15. Petitioner deposed that respondent entered into kitchen first time after several persuasions though such a custom prevails in Jain families for the wife to cook food after reaching matrimonial home first time. His father gave her a Shagan of Rs.1,100/ when she prepared tea. She got furious and threw the shagan on his father's face, saying that she was neither a beggar nor a cook. Petitioner did not mention the date on which such incident happened. But it might have happened within one or two days of the marriage. A newly wed wife cannot be supposed to be so daring on the first or second day of marriage that she would throw the shagan on the face of her fatherinlaw. It is respondent's contention that she hails from orthodox business family, nurtured in Jain rituals which don't permit such behaviour. PW2 admitted in cross examination that he was not in a position to remember the exact derogatory and abusive word. He also could not remember the exact date and month of that incident. In this background, it cannot be said that respondent threw shagan of Rs.1,100/ on the face of petitioner's father. He further deposed that she did not prepare tea and food in the absence of his parents. She refused to consume anything prepared by his mother, saying that she wanted complete Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
15separation from them. Even tea and breakfast prepared by petitioner was refused by respondent. Respondent and her father deposed that she was always in the kitchen preparing food and tea with the help of petitioner's mother. But Mark X1 - a writing duly admitted by respondent, suggests that it was becoming very difficult for her to have food at respondent's house. She further mentions in Mark X that she cannot eat there. This admission corroborates the testimony of PW1 as well as PW2.
16. Petitioner deposed that respondent refused to identify his sister, Mrs. Anupama Goel and her husband Mr. Vineet Goel on 13.02.2005 and did not open door for half an hour. She also did not ask them for a glass of water. Respondent deposed that she was at parental home on 13.02.2005 where she had gone on 12.02.2005. She stated that when she was not present there, no question of insulting petitioner's sister arise at all. Petitioner's sister, Mrs. Anupama Goel and her husband Mr. Vineet Goel did not appear in the witness box and they were the only competent witnesses to describe and throw light on this incident. Petitioner further cited the incident of 08.03.2005, when respondent refused to prepare tea for Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
16his family friends. He admitted in crossexamination that these family friends were Mr. Abhisekh Jain and Mr. Amit Singh/PW4. Mr. Amit Singh did not say even a single word about this incident when he appeared in the witness box. Mr. Abhisekh Jain, who is cousin brother of petitioner did not appear at all. So both these incidents cannot be taken into account.
17. Petitioner stated on oath that respondent compelled him in June, 2005 to handover her and his mother's jewellery which she put in a locker in PNB, Bhikaji Cama Place for which he had to deposit Rs.10,000/ as FDR though there was Indian Overseas Bank nearby. Respondent also admitted in written statement that she had taken jewellery from petitioner but due to hostile attitude and behaviour of his parents. Mark X1 is an admitted document in which she openly admits that she had no grouse against petitioner's mother. She failed to explain why did she take her motherinlaw's jewellery. He next deposed about the incident of 10.06.2005 when respondent tried to consume poisonous tablet when he refused to provide her separate luxurious accommodation on the ground that Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
17his parents shall feel alone because of his being the only son. However, in crossexamination, dated 11.12.2007, he stated that he does not know the name of the tablet and also he did not discuss the matter with respondent's parents. It is an unnatural conduct because a husband whose wife tries to commit suicide, shall definitely complain to her parents. Then he cited the incident of 11.06.2005 when he tried to persuade her for not demanding severance from joint family. She hit him with slippers and then proceeded to parental home. He further deposed that he accompanied her fearing that she might drive the car rashly and injure herself. His parents also followed them to know her well being but they were insulted. Petitioner's father/PW2 deposed in his statement on 15.07.2008 that he can say only after consulting the diary whether he was or was not, out of Delhi on 11.06.2005. After consulting the diary, he stated that he was out of the town for Khatoli. It falsifies the whole version regarding this incident. Petitioner next came to the taking on rent a new and luxurious accommodation for respondent. He submitted that respondent was quarreling with him to live separately from his parents. He took on rent a house near to his parental home but she refused to live therein because she wanted it near parental home Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
18and that is why he took on rent Flat No. 4190 in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Respondent deposed that she was well aware before marriage of the space available in petitioner's house. It has four bedrooms along with bathrooms, one kitchen, one drawingcum dinning room and open space on the first floor and this much space was sufficient for her, petitioner, his parents and the child. She further deposed that petitioner's house was bigger than her parental home and was a dream home for her. She further deposed that petitioner's parents used to go frequently to Mumbai and Khatoli to look after properties. This fact was admitted by petitioner's father in his deposition on 04.04.2008. So demand of separate house is not proved.
18. Bone of contention is the incident of 04.07.2005. In petition, it is alleged carefully and artistically that respondent invited an unfortunate incident on that day in which she suffered burn injuries. In written statement, respondent termed it as an accident. Petitioner came more openly in replication alleging that it was not an accident but self immolation. Respondent's counsel stated that parties had made statements before police next day of the incident Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
19stating that it was merely an accident. He referred to Ex.PW1/2, clause no. 1 that respondent received burn injuries when she caught fire while cooking. He further argued that had this incident been a bid of self immolation, petitioner would not have claimed money for mediclaim policy, vide Ex.PW1/3 in which he clearly mentioned it an accident burns. He also relied upon the insurance policy, Ex.PW 1/4 to lend support to his arguments. He referred to Ex.RW1/P2, dated 05.07.2005, signed by respondent's father/RW2/Mr. V.K. Aggarwal, intimating police that respondent told him that she caught fire while working in kitchen. Mr. V.K. Aggarwal stated in that information to the police that he was intimated by Mr. Amit/PW4 regarding the burn injuries. On the strength of these documents and oral depositions of RW1 and RW2, respondent's counsel concluded that it was an accident because respondent did not know how to handle gas burner and in that process caught fire which was doused by petitioner.
19. Hearing the arguments of respondent's counsel, petitioner's counsel jumped to clause no. 9 of Ex.PW1/2 in which parties' parents mentioned that they were ready to give undertaking Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
20to the police to the effect that that type of incident will not happen again. He stated that it suggests that it was an accident but a deliberate attempt of fire. He also referred to MarkB (report by police), dated 19.05.2007 in which police clearly stated that investigation was still pending despite recording of statements of the parties by it and SDM. He said that if the said incident was an accident, why the police was still investigating the case? He placed reliance upon Ex.RW1/P1. It is a DD No. 64B, dated 05.07.2005, PS Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The investigating officer clearly mentions that one neighbour, Mr. Amit, resident of Flat No. 4069, SectorB was found in the hospital when police reached there and he stated that he had brought the couple in the hospital. Thereafter police went to the place of incident and found one match box in drawing room, lying on a cot. One burnt candle was also lying near the cot on the floor. A burnt match stick was found near cot and one burnt match stick was found lying at cot in bedroom. Baygon spray was kept in bedroom. Keeping in mind the seizure of these articles by the police from the place of fire, it can be said easily that it was not an accident but a deliberate attempt of fire which happened not in the kitchen but in the bedroom. Respondent admitted in cross Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
21examination of 25.03.2009 that she received burn injuries below abdomen and on both arms. The height of slab in kitchen is not less than three and half ft. from surface. Respondent is a woman of not more than 5',2". If the fire had taken place accidentally due to mishandling of gas burner, she would have received injuries on the abdomen. But the injuries are upon the lower portions i.e. below the abdomen. It suggests that she tried to burn herself and then tried to douse the fire with both hands. When the fire could not be controlled completely, she yelled "save save" Hearing noise, petitioner came and he tried to extinguish the fire, resulting injuries to his hands also. Respondent's following crossexamination regarding this incident is highly baffling : "I don't remember where I was present on 04.07.2005. I cannot admit or deny whether I was present or not at my house no. 4190, Vasant Kunj. I am unable to remember whether there was any quarrel between me and the petitioner on that day ... I don't remember as to how I received burn injuries. I am unable to remember as to in which portion of my house I received burn injuries. I don't remember whether I received burn injuries from match stick, gas stove, burner or not. I don't know on which portion of my body, I received fire.
I don't know what I was doing at the time when I Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
22
received burn injuries. I don't remember whether any meal was or was not prepared at my home on 04.07.2005. I don't know that there was no other combustible material except match stick and cylinder. I am unable to remember that I was in bedroom at that time. It is wrong to suggest that first I sprinkled Baygon spray on my body and then I caught fire with the help of match stick. I don't remember that at the time of injury, I was alone in the room. I don't remember as to what I did at the time I caught fire. I don't remember that I cried "save - save". It is correct that petitioner extinguished the fire." ... Petitioner doused off fire completely by throwing water. I don't know from what distance did he throw water. I don't know where the petitioner and myself were present when he doused off fire. I don't remember whether the petitioner tried to extinguish fire by hand or by cloth. Doctor told me that petitioner received injuries on his hands when he extinguished fire. ... I don't remember whether I was conscious or unconscious when I reached hospital after fire. I intimated petitioner about the fire. I did not intimate petitioner as he was looking at when I was on fire. I don't remember where I was present before I caught fire. It is incorrect that at that time I was in bedroom of house no. 4190 of Vasant Kunj. I have no basis to say that it was an accident. ... I know Mr. Amit Singh ... I don't remember whether on my insistence, he called petitioner on phone or not."
Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
23
20. Petitioner's version is that respondent went to the house of Mr. Amit Singh/PW4 on 04.07.2005 and called him (petitioner) on Amit's phone. She asked him to come home immediately and also abused him. Mr. Amit Singh/PW4 deposed that he received a call from respondent herself at about 9.00 - 10.00 p.m. of 04.04.2005 that she had caught fire. He straightway went to parties' house as it was nearly located and found both standing beneath the shower. He took them to hospital. His story is corroborated by police report. He is the natural witness of the incident of 04.07.2005. Taking into account all these documents oral evidence and evasive replies by respondent, it can be held with certaintity that she tried to commit suicide by burning herself on 04.07.2005.
21. Petitioner as well as his father deposed that respondent and her father started threatening them they would make statements against them to the police and demanded Rs. Three lacs in cash. Respondent's counsel argued that when the statement was already made by respondent on 05.07.2005 to the police that the incident was an accident, there arises no question of demand of any money. But respondent admitted in the crossexamination, dated 14.05.2009 Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
24that she did not visit her inlaw's house after discharge from hospital as relations between her and petitioner were deteriorating regularly. Ex.PW2/RA is the telegram which petitioner's father sent to Commissioner of Police stating the threat and demand. Thereafter he moved anticipatory bail application, Ex.PW2/2, upon which order Ex.PW2/3 was passed. All these documents and admission of the petitioner suggests that something was going on between the parties which was against petitioner and that is why his father moved anticipatory bail application.
22. Petitioner deposed that respondent refused to deliver the child at his house terming them beggar. He further deposed that when he went to see the child, he was not allowed to enter the house. Rather it was stated by her father that he would get respondent married to some rich boy and she would settle abroad. Respondent's version in this regard is that expected date of delivery was in January, 2006 but she started feeling labour pain on 06.12.2005 and she immediately contacted petitioner on telephone as he was in the office. Petitioner responded that he was busy in the office and was scheduled to leave for Nepal for business tour on Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
2507.12.2005 in the early hours. By the night of 06.12.2005, labor pain became unbearable and her parents immediately approached Mayfair Nursing Home where doctors informed that she was to deliver the child. Her father tried many times to contact petitioner to apprise him of sudden development but he was not available on phone. On his return from Nepal on 11.12.2005, he named the son as Vardhman. Thereafter petitioner resided with her till 27.12.2005. It is the case of the respondent that she and her father contacted petitioner on his mobile no. 9818544489 but they did not file call record. Her other contention that petitioner resided with her till 27.12.2005 is not supported by any document. In cross examination, she deposed that photographs of the petitioner were taken in which their son was also appearing. But she did not place on record such photographs. Rather she relied upon photographs clicked on the occasion of her birthday which fell in August, 2005. Petitioner is appearing in these photographs. Negatives of these photographs were not placed on record. There is nothing in those photographs which may show that these pertain to the August month of 2005.
Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
26
23. Respondent alleged that petitioner's father had demanded Rs. Two lacs at the time of marriage for purchase of costly furniture articles. This amount was happily given by her father. Petitioner's father again demanded cash and Pukhraj gold ring when he came to know that she was pregnant. Respondent failed to substantiate these averments because there is no FIR in this regard. Moreover, she was in contact with police when her statement was recorded in the hospital. But she did not mince a single word about demand of dowry.
24. Mark X1 is a page in a register, admittedly written by respondent and it's following contents are highly relevant : "I simply cannot share my feelings with him (petitioner) ... only his mom makes me feel at home. His dad, I cannot expect anything out of him. He is an artificial man. Nobody can doubt his love for his only son. ... Honestly speaking, I don't like him at all. I am very uncomfortable at his place. I just want to run away. ... It is becoming very difficult for me to even have food at Sidharth's place. I just cannot get myself to eat there. I don't understand what to do. I wish I did not marry at all. ... Wonder, why I married at all. Sidharth is one of those guys Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....
27
who do not have head of their own. They are totally different personalities who lack self confidence.
25. This writing of respondent sums up the case. So, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2
26. Petitioner is entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage because issue no. 1 has been decided in his favour. ISSUE NO. 3
27. Consequent to decisions on issue nos. 1 and 2, petitioner/Sidharth Jain's marriage with respondent/Vandana Aggarwal is dissolved by way of decree U/s 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty without costs.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room. (Announced in the open court today (Umed Singh Grewal) today i.e. on 15.05.2010) ADJ02(North)/Delhi Sidharth Jain v Vandana Aggarwal Contd....