Smt. Renu vs Rakesh Kannojia

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Earlier this appeal was decided on merits by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 27.03.2008, against which the respondent appears to have filed Civil Appeal No. 7187 of 2010 before the Apex court, and the same was decided by said court vide its decree dated 30th of August 2010. By said decree dated 30th of August 2010, Hon''ble the Apex court remitted back the matter to this Court for fresh disposal, as such, in compliance of said order this appeal is being disposed of, afresh.

By means of this appeal, preferred u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant (wife) had challenged the judgment and order dated 07.08.2006, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Suit No. 343 of 2004, whereby the petition filed by the wife seeking divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was dismissed.

We heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that she has no instructions in the matter.

Brief facts of the case are that appellant Smt. Renu got married to respondent Rakesh Kannojia on 16.11.2002, according to Hindu rites at Dehradun. The appellant moved a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the trial court, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is pleaded by her that the respondent and his relations were not satisfied with the dowry given in the marriage by the parents of the petitioner. She has alleged in the petition that the petitioner was even denied food at times. She has further alleged that the respondent and his relatives used to ask her to wash blankets etc. at 04:00 A.M., as she had not brought washing machine from her parental house. It is specifically pleaded in the petition for divorce that on 13th of March 2003, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the appellant administered her ''HARPIC''. It is stated by her that she was taken to hospital. She has further stated that she lodged first information report against her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, relating to offences punishable u/s 307, 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

The respondent (husband) contested the petition and filed his written statement before the trial court. He admitted that he got married to the appellant on 16.11.2002, at Dehradun. However, as to the allegations of cruelty, he denied the same. He pleaded that the criminal case lodged by the appellant relating to attempt to commit murder and harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, is false. He further pleaded that it was the wife who deserted him. It is also stated by the husband that he filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, at Delhi.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun:

i) Whether, the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged?

ii) To what relief the petitioner is entitled?

iii) Whether, the petitioner is entitled to ''Stridhan'', as prayed by her?

iv) Whether, the petitioner has withdrawn from the society of her husband without any sufficient reason?

The trial court recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing them, gave a finding that the factum of cruelty is not proved, and dismissed the suit for divorce. Also, no amount of ''Stridhan'' was awarded, and the application u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was also dismissed. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 07.08.2006, this appeal is filed by the wife.

We have gone through the evidence on record, once again. P.W. 1 Smt. Renu has stated on oath that she was treated by her husband with cruelty. It is further stated by her that her husband and his relatives were not happy with the dowry given by her parents. She further stated that she was not even allowed to meet the members of her family who used to come from the parental side. Narrating the incident of 13.03.2003, she stated that she was administered ''HARPIC'' by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, and her husband did not object to it. In our opinion, the evidence adduced by the wife was sufficient to prove the cruelty committed by the husband, against her. The respondent (husband) in his affidavit on record has stated that appellant had taken ''HARPIC'' on her own volition. Assuming for a moment that she did so, it can be gathered from the circumstances of the case that since she was subjected to cruelty, she might have done so. After weighing the entire evidence on record adduced by the parties, in our opinion, the petitioner / appellant (wife) has proved that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband, and the trial court has erred in law in holding otherwise. Therefore, we reverse the finding recorded by the trial court, on the issue.

As to the ''Stridhan'' claimed by the wife, the list of the good and presents given in the marriage is attached with the record, and the items mentioned in the list are supported by cash memos and the receipts filed before the trial court. Having gone through the evidence on record on the point, we again find that the value of the ''Stridhan'' which the petitioner / appellant is entitled back is Rs. 3.25 lakhs.

Therefore, for the reasons as discussed above, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The same is allowed. The judgment and order dated 07.08.2006, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Suit No. 343 of 2004, is set aside. The petition moved u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is allowed. Marriage between the parties is dissolved. The application moved u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is also allowed, and the respondent (husband) shall pay Rs. 3.25 lakhs to the petitioner / appellant towards value of the goods, if not returned, within a period of one month from today. Costs easy. (Criminal Revision No. 180 of 2006 is also being decided separately, in compliance of the direction of the Apex court).