The court established that the respondent's drug addiction constituted cruelty, leading to dissolution of marriage by a Decree of divorce.

1. Appellant is legally wedded wife of respondent, marriage between spouses having been solemnized on 02.10.1998 at Jammu in accordance with Hindu Rites. A male child, Master Hritik, was born out of the said wedlock between the spouses. To her chagrin, appellant discovered within a month of the marriage that the respondent was a person of shaky nature avoiding people and the family members. The respondent would go to long sleep after consuming some medicine. On being confronted about his abnormal behaviour, he would abuse the petitioner. It finally dawned upon her that respondent was a drug addict — a fact concealed from appellant at the time of marriage. Respondent lost his job and he could not stick to work at any place after finding alternate jobs. Appellant was abused and also subjected to physical violence as the respondent had been spending his lights in dark tunnels. The consistent abnormal behaviour of respondent resulted in embitterment of relations between the spouses. Finding it difficult to reconcile with the behaviour of respondent and that she had been cheated in marriage by concealing drug addiction of respondent the appellant along with her minor son started living with her parents at Jammu. Respondent was fired from job whenever and wherever he took a new job after losing the previous one. Appellant prayed for dissolution of her marriage with respondent by invoking jurisdiction of District Court where she filed a petition under Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage subsisting between spouses a nullity and also under Section 13 of the same Act for dissolution of marriage by Decree of divorce. The Petition was contested by respondent-husband who denied that he ever consumed drugs or that he was a drug-addict. Respondent further pleaded that the appellant was enamoured of glamorous city life and she was reluctant to live with him in small and remote areas. She would exhibit her erratic behaviour picking up quarrel with him frequently. Respondent denied hat he was ever fired by his employer. He pleaded that he was in search of better opportunities of job which resulted in frequent change of employment. He alleged that the appellant had withdrawn from his society without reasonable and sufficient cause.

2. Parties joined the following issues:

1. Whether the consent of appellant for marriage was obtained by suppres#31;sion of facts? OPP

2. Whether the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty? OPP

3. Relief. OPP

3. Evidence was adduced by appellant who besides examining 2/3 witnesses in support of her case also entered the witness box to substantiate the allegations in the Petition. Respondent failed to enter the witness box to rebut the allegations in the petition, though he examined two witnesses in defence.

4. On consideration of the evidence adduced by parties learned District Judge (Matrimonial Cases) Jammu dismissed the Petition. Learned Trial did not find any evidence to prove that the respondent was a drug addict prior to his marriage with the petition., therefore no question of concealment of such fact or getting married with appellant arouse. He found that there was also no evidence of cruelty.

5. In this Appeal filed against the impugned Judgment rendered by learned Trial Court on 30.09.2008 appellant has seriously questioned findings recorded by learned Trial Court on the ground that the facts pleaded in the petition have been substantiated by appellant and proved by her witnesses including an Expert-Dr. Vinod Dhar which stands un-rebutted. Respondent has not appeared in the witness box to prove that he has improved upon the vice of drug addiction and that he has undergone reformation. Furthermore the mere fact that the respondent was a drug-addict perpetuating agony and inflicting pain upon the appellant in itself constituted cruelty. He submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the effect of non-appearance of respondent in witness box ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document