Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as 'HMA') assails the judgment & decree dated 21.03.2009 passed in HMA 128/2008 by Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi, whereby the learned ADJ while allowing the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the HMA, has passed a decree of dissolution of marriage in favour of the respondent/husband and against the appellant/wife.

2. The parties were married on 21.07.2003 in Delhi. One issue was born out of the wedlock on 29.05.2004 at Chandigarh. In his petition, the respondent/husband averred that after coming back from the honeymoon, the appellant lived with the respondent and his family only for a few days. Thereafter, the appellant left for Chandigarh to resume her work, and the respondent along with his parents was living in Delhi. The respondent claimed that when the appellant conceived, the respondent requested her to return to Delhi at her matrimonial home. However, she did not return. The respondent further alleged that the respondent only came to know of the birth of the child from the wife of the landlord of the house at Chandigarh on the following day, and no endeavour was made by the appellant or her family to inform the respondent. The respondent was not allowed to see or touch the child when he went to see the child at Chandigarh. He was also not allowed to conduct the birth ceremonies. Further, the respondent alleged that after coming back from Chandigarh, the appellant, instead of coming to her matrimonial home went to her parental home. The appellant threatened the respondent and his family members with implication in a false dowry case. Thereafter, she filed a complaint dated 13.02.2006 in CAW Cell, on allegations of harassment and infidelity. Even after the settlement of the complaint in the CAW Cell, when the appellant came back to the matrimonial house, she did not fulfill the family obligations and duties as a wife and daughter-in-law.

"It is correct that on 30.08.2006, my father told both of us to pack up our belongings and leave the house. I do not remember that on 02.09.2006 the respondent rang up the CAW Cell and thereafter she was allowed to enter the house."

However, in his petition, he stated as follows:

"26. That due to the intervention of the senior officers of CAW Cell and after the advise of petitioner's father, the petitioner brought the respondent to his house.... ... ."

"At one of the meetings in the hotel, I informed the father of the petitioner and his son-in-law that the respondent has been transferred back from Chandigarh to Delhi."

13. Learned counsel submits that the respondent was never informed of the birth of the child by the appellant or her family. He was informed of the child birth by the wife of the landlord of the rented house in Chandigarh. J.N. Bhatia (RW-2) admitted that the respondent met his daughter for the first time in the CAW Cell. He deposed that "It is correct that the petitioner met his daughter for the first time in CAW Cell." The respondent submits that the fact he was kept away from his daughter for over two years after her birth, constitutes cruelty.

40. So far as the finding returned by the learned ADJ regarding the making of a false complaint by the appellant against the respondent and his family members before the CAW cell on 13.02.2006, and its causing mental agony and pain to the respondent is concerned, in my view, the Trial Court has comprehensively analysed the evidence brought on record by the parties and the same also does not call for interference by this Court in appeal. The appellant does not dispute that the respondent sent a legal notice dated 10.02.2006 asking the appellant to resume her matrimonial duties and join the company of the respondent. The case of the respondent was that, as a counterblast, the appellant lodged the complaint with the CAW cell dated 13.02.2006 (Ex. RW-1/5). The appellant claims that the notice dated 10.02.2006 had been received only on 14.02.2006, whereas the complaint had been lodged a day prior to, i.e. 13.02.2006 and thus, it could not be said that the complaint before the CAW cell was a counterblast by the appellant. Pertinently, in her submissions filed before the Trial Court, the appellant stated that "...she in order to put pressure on the Petitioner moved the CAW cell on 13-02-2006 and it was due to the efforts of the CAW cell that she had been allowed to enter the matrimonial house on 23-06-2006". Thus, it emerges that the said complaint to the CAW cell was made with a view to put pressure on the respondent.