Whether the instances of mental cruelty enumerated in this case by the appellant would cumulatively be adequate to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty according to the settled legal position as crystallized by a number of cases of this Court and other Courts.
Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain,J. & Hon’ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I,J.
Order Date :-18.12.2017
FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. – 6 of 2011
Appellant :- Smt. Gurpreet Kaur Respondent :- Shri Rajeev Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Amrit Preet Singh AND Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. – 4 of 2011 Appellant :- Smt. Gurpreet Kaur Respondent :- Shri Rajeev Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Amrit Preet Singh AND Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. – 5 of 2011 Appellant :- Smt. Gurpreet Kaur Respondent :- Shri Rajeev Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Amrit Preet Singh
(Delivered by Hon’ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I, J.)
1. This is yet another unfortunate matrimonial dispute which has shattered the old matrimonial bond between the parties.
2. The respondent namely Rajeev Singh filed a petition in January, 2005 as Original Suit No.29 of 2005 for judicial separation under Section 10 of Hindu Marriage Act, 19551 and thereafter through amendment the above mentioned case was amended as suit for dissolution of his marriage under Section 1 Act 13 of the Act instituted in court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, which was registered as Original Suit No.29 of 2005; Rajeev Singh v. Smt. Gurpreet Kaur.
3. In the petition filed before the Family court, it was averred by the respondent-husband that the marriage between the parties was solemnized in accordance with Hindu Sikh rites and customs on 04.11.1998. After marriage the husband and wife stayed together for sometime and during continuance of marriage, a female child named Km. Prabhleen Kaur came to this world on 25.01.2001. It is alleged by the husband that the appellant-wife was non-cooperative, arrogant and her behaviour towards the family members of the husband was unacceptable. Despite misunderstanding, a female child was born in the wedlock and thereafter, the wife took the child and left the house and went to her parental house and chose not to come back to the husband or his family and to perform her duties as wife in the house of her husband. It was pleaded that there had been a marital discord and total non-compatibility, and she had deserted him severing all ties.
4. Wife, Smt. Gurpreet Kaur/appellant, also instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal right under Section 9 of the Act against the respondent, which was registered as Original Suit No.694 of 2005; Smt. Gurpreet Kaur v. Rajeev Singh and another. A suit under Section 27 of the Act was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court by the appellant, which was registered as Misc. Case No.31C of 2008 for return of ‘Stridhan’ and Original Suit No.42 of 2009 under Section 25 of the Act for grant of permanent alimony. It is alleged that the matter was referred to reconciliation at the ‘Paramarsh Kendra’ (Conciliation Board) in the Family Court Lucknow but the husband withdrawn himself and violated the terms and condition of living together as the good efforts were made in this regard by the reconciliation officers. During the course of hearing all the above suits were consolidated by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court and Original Suit No.29 of 2005 was made leading case. Issues were framed and evidence was taken. After recording the statement of witness and hearing the parties at length, learned Principal Judge, Family Court decided all the above mentioned case vide order dated 27.11.2010 and disposed of as follows:
i. Original Suit No.29 of 2005 filed under Section 13 of the Act was decreed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.
ii. Original Suit No.694 of 2005 filed under Section 9 of the Act by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.
iii. Misc. Case No.31C of 2008 filed by the wife under Section 27 of the Act was partly allowed and the respondent-husband was directed to return the items of the wife, which was kept by him as ‘Stridhan’.
iv. Original Suit No.42 of 2009 filed under Section 25 of the Act was partly allowed and the husband was directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the appellant.
5. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has filed the present appeals on the ground that:
(a) The husband has not specifically stated and pleaded that he did not want to live with his wife. The appellantwife has expressed her willingness to live with the respondent-husband and she has filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights.
(b) The appellant had led the evidence to the fact that she was expelled from her Sasural as she is still ready to live with his husband that the respondent had stated in his oral statement that he wanted to live with the appellant as such he went several times to her parental house to bring her back, which proves that there was no cruelty by the appellant against the respondent.
(c) By filing the petition under Section 27 of the Act, the appellant has expressed her willingness to live with the respondent and always made her ready to live together as husband and wife that by the assessment of oral evidence led by the respondent the form of cruelty or desertion on part of the appellant-wife has not been proved.
(d) That the matter was taken up by the Family Court and ‘Ramgariya Sabha’, Their internal social wing, which has been coordinating in the matter of family dispute and tried their best to decide the matter but the respondenthusband failed to comply the advice given by the ‘Ramgariya Sabha’
(e) that the respondent-husband has neglected the appellant-wife without any proper reason and rhyme and the above fact has not been considered by the learned family court that in their pleadings, both the parties have stated that while living separately, they have tried to patch up the differences and so accordingly the efforts were made by them to live together as husband and wife but in spite of above facts, the family court reached the conclusion of cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife.