Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. K. RASTOGI
ARUN KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
INDIRA - Respondents
FA 403 Of 1996
Decided On : 09/02/2005
Cruelty - Hindu Marriage Act - Section 13, Section 27 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 27 of the same Act. The court interpreted the definition of joint property under Section 27 and its applicability to items given at or about the time of marriage. The court referred to the interpretation of these provisions in Balkrishna R. Kadam v. Sangeeta B. Kadam, AIR 1997 SC 3652 and Hemant Kumar Agrahari v. Laxmi Devi, 2003 (32) ALR 166. The court held that all properties given in connection with the marriage, either at the time of marriage, before, or after, can be dealt with under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty, alleging mistreatment by the defendant. The defendant contested the suit and filed a counter claim for recovery of items given at the time of marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant had treated the plaintiff with cruelty and allowed the counter claim in part, awarding the defendant a sum of Rs. 67,155 with 6% interest.
Issues: (i) Whether the defendant treated the plaintiff with cruelty as alleged in the plaint? (ii) Relief. (iii) Whether the defendant is entitled to return of her goods by way of counter claim or in the alternative to its price?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's mistreatment constituted cruelty, and interpreted the provisions of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act to allow the counter claim in part.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit for divorce and allowed the counter claim in part, awarding the defendant a sum of Rs. 67,155 with 6% interest.
( 1 ) BOTH these appeals have arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 19-8-1996 passed by Sri S. K. Bhatt, then learned Judge, Family Court, Meerut in original suit No. 492 of 1989, Arun Kumar v, Smt. Indira. It may be mentioned here that F. A. No. 863 of 2003 was originally registered as defective F. A. 721 of 1996 and after removal of defects regular F. A. No. 863 of 2003 was allotted to it. Since both these appeals have arisen out of the judgment in same suit, we heard both of them together and now we are deciding them vide a common judgment.
( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to both these appeals are that the plaintiff Arun Kumar had filed original suit No. 492 of 1989 in the court of the Civil Judge, Meerut against the defendant, Smt. Indira under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act with these allegations that their marriage had taken place at meerut on 29-1-1988 according to Hindu rites. Thereafter Smt. Indira came to the house of the plaintiff Arun Kumar to reside with him. The behaviour of Smt. Indira was very arrogant towards Arun Kumar and she misbehaved with him and his other family members. On 30-4-1998 brother of Smt. Indira came to the house of Arun Kumar and took Indira with him saying that she will come back after two days as she wanted to see her mother. Smt. Indira took all her ornaments with her. On 3-5-1988 Arun Kumar went to the house of parents of Indira to take her back, but she refused to come back, and her family members misbehaved with arun Kumar. Thereafter Arun Kumar and his family members repeatedly met Smt. Indira and her parents and other family members for her Vida, but all in vain. Then arun Kumar filed original suit No. 662 of 1988 for restitution of conjugal rights. After coming to know about this suit Smt. Indiras behaviour became worse towards Arun kumar and he had to withdraw his above petition. On 8-8-1988 Smt. Indira filed an application under Section 156 Cr. P. C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, meerut against Arun Kumar, his parents and two unmarried sisters under Sections 307, 313, 498-A, 506 I. P. C. and 3/4, Dowery prohibition Act. The Magistrate passed an order directing SHO, Kotwali Meerut to register a case, and then Arun Kumar was arrested by the police and his parents and sisters had to surrender in Court. Arun Kumar remained in jail for 25 days and then he was bailed out. Smt. Indira sent false complaints to the police authorities ana so the factory of Arun Kumar was raided by the police, and with connivance of Press, false stories were published in the newspapers. His shop was also taken into custody and the police gave it in Supurdagi of another person. When smt. Indira left the house of Arun Kumar she was pregnant. Subsequently she got an abortion done against wishes of Arun kumar. Then Arun Kumar filed this suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
( 3 ) SMT. Indira contested the suit and filed her written statement in which she admitted her marriage with Arun Kumar but denied rest of the allegations. She claimed in her written statement that after marriage she went to the house of Arun Kumar and resided with him as his wife. She went to her parents house on 30-1-1988 along with arun Kumar and returned back to the house of Arun Kumar in that very night with him and thereafter continuously remained with him up to 28 2-1988. Then she came to her parents house on that date and stayed there upto 12-3-1988 to celebrate Holi, as according to the custom her first Holi could not be celebrated at her in laws house. She continuously resided with Arun Kumar from 12-3-1988 to 30-4-1988 when she was forced at about 8 P. M, to leave the house in wearing apparel only and since then she is continuously residing with her father. Arun kumar and his family members are greedy. A sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was spent in the marriage. A sum of Rs. 51,000/- was given by her father to Arun Kumar at the time of engagement and items like scooter and colour T. V. , watches, LP
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
