Kiran Khosla vs Rakesh Rai Khosla

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife - Kiran Khosla against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2014 vide which the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') was allowed by the trial Court.

Few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as pleaded in the petition before the learned Court below may be noticed. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.02.1999 at Batala as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. After the marriage, both the parties resided and cohabited together. One female child was born on 03.06.2000 out of the said wedlock, who is in the custody of the appellant-wife. As per averments made in the petition, it was pleaded that the marriage was a simple one. The appellant-wife from the very beginning of the marriage was unhappy in the matrimonial home. She would often pressurize the respondent-husband to demand his share in the family property and to move in with her at her mother's house as a "ghar jawai". Since the respondent-husband was reluctant to toe her line, the appellant-wife used to indulge in derogatory language and would not even hesitate to humiliate the respondent-husband and his family in front of one and all. It was further alleged that the appellant-wife would extend threats to falsely implicate the respondent-husband and his family in dowry case if he did not agree to move into her mother's house. The respondent-husband also alleged that in the month of May, 2000 when the appellant-wife was pregnant, on her asking he sent her to her mother's house at Phagwara where she delivered their daughter. He claimed that all the expenses incurred at the time of delivery of their daughter were borne by him. After the respondent-husband brought back the appellant-wife and their daughter to his house on 03.09.2000, the appellant-wife again started exerting pressure on the husband to move into her mother's house to which he did not agree. This resulted in a quarrel between the parties and on 20.01.2001, the appellant-wife left the matrimonial home along with the daughter and took along with her all her jewellery and valuables. The respondent-husband claimed that he made several efforts to bring back the appellant-wife into the conjugal fold but it proved to be a futile exercise. The appellant-wife got registered a criminal case under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC against the respondent-husband and his brother which however, ended in their acquittal vide judgment dated 22.08.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Phagwara. The respondent-husband pleaded that the marriage had broken down beyond repair as no cohabitation had taken place between them since 20.01.2001.

Per contra, the appellant-wife in her written statement filed before the Court below, denied the allegations and averments made in the petition. She rather stated that soon after their marriage, the respondent-husband and his family had shown their dissatisfaction qua the dowry given to her at the time of marriage. She claimed that she was maltreated by the respondent-husband and his family and in May, 2000 she was forcibly sent to Phagwara for the delivery of their daughter. She alleged that the respondent-husband and his family did not even care to see their newly born daughter and came only after two months of the birth of the child and that too on the asking of her mother. She claimed that though she and her daughter were taken back by the respondent-back to the matrimonial home but they persisted with their demand for more dowry. She rather claimed that it was the respondent-husband, who forcibly sent her in January, 2001 to Phagwara and ever since then she had been living with her mother. Qua the criminal case instituted against the respondent-husband and his brother under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, she claimed that after the registration of the case, the respondent-husband apologized. Hence, a compromise was effected between the parties leading to the acquittal of the respondent-husband and his brother in the said case.

After the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:

Whether respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty? OPP

Whether respondent has deserted the petitioner without any reasonable cause? OPP

Whether the petitioner has concealed the material facts? OPR

Relief.

Thereafter, both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective stands. The respondent-husband stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and examined Sanjeev Sanan as PW-2, Manorama Khullar as PW-3 and Geeta Khosla as PW-4. On the other hand, the appellant-wife herself stepped into the witness box as RW-1 and also examined RW-2 Pawan Bhalla.

After analyzing the evidence led by the parties as also the other material available on record, the trial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent-husband and dissolved the marriage between the parties.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence as well as other material available on record.

It would be worthwhile to mention that during the pendency of the instant appeal, the parties were referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement, which however, failed to yield any positive result.

Learned counsel for the parties while addressing arguments stuck to their respective stands and reiterated their submissions made before the trial Court.

It is an admitted case of both the parties that there has been no cohabitation between them since January, 2001 i.e. for the past about more than 18 years. It is also admitted by the appellant-wife that a criminal case under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC was instituted by her against the respondent-husband, which ended in the acquittal of the respondent-husband and his brother. The submission of the appellant-wife that the acquittal of the respondent-husband and his brother had been on account of a compromise effected between the parties as the respondent-husband had apologized to her is at variance with the testimony of both the appellant-wife and her mother, who while appearing as witnesses in the said case deposed that due to some misunderstanding between the respondent-husband and the appellant-wife the said criminal case had been lodged against the respondent-husband. So much so, the appellant-wife deposed that the respondent-husband had never maltreated her nor had he misappropriated any dowry articles. In this background, the registration of a false case against the respondent-husband and his brother by the appellant-wife in fact amounts to cruelty. Besides this, there is nothing on record from which an inference could be raised that the appellant-wife was subjected to any harassment or meted out any maltreatment by the respondent-husband or his family. All the allegations levelled against the respondent-husband on the face of it are vague and frivolous in nature and not even supported by any shred of evidence.

Coming to the next issue of desertion, no cogent or convincing evidence has been led by the appellant-wife from which it could be inferred that she was forced to leave her matrimonial home by the respondent-husband. A perusal of her deposition and cross-examination before the Court below reveals that it was the respondent-husband, who had made earnest efforts to bring her back in the conjugal fold but she herself was unwilling to return to her matrimonial home.

As a sequel to the above discussion, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.