2019 Supreme(All) 2065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, JJ.
Monika Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Jitendra Gandhi – Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 60, 61 of 2016
Decided On : 06-08-2019

Headnote:

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 9 and 13 – Plaintiff/appellant filed Case for annulling marriage on ground that she was married to defendant/ respondent according to Hindu rites and custom –When she was 7 years old, both her parents died, and she was brought up along with her two brothers by her maternal uncle and aunt (Mausa and mausi). – It is they who had performed ceremony of "Kanyadan" and gave dowry as per their status –After marriage, there was constant demand for dowry by in-laws and appellant was not treated well – For three weeks, she stayed at her in-laws house and, thereafter came to her maternal home along with her brother and after living for 15 days, she again went back to her in-laws house from where her husband took her to Gandhi Dham, Gujarat –Defendant/respondent by filing his written statement and in additional pleas, it was stated that appellant did not want to live at Gandhi Dham and was forcing respondent to live at Jhansi –Appellant and her two brothers are not in control of her maternal uncle and aunt –Appellant would quarrel and fight for petty things and she was not interested in doing domestic work and she did not want to live along with family members of respondent and was always pressurizing him to live separately –She had been pressurizing respondent for claiming his share in family property, consequence of which parents of respondent after, giving his share had snapped ties with respondent and appellant –Appellant was having extra marital relation with her brother-in-law (Jija) –Defendant/respondent filed Case for restitution of conjugal rights before Additional Senior Civil Judge –He made same allegation that appellant displayed strange behaviour after returning from her parental house –After being transferred from Gandhi Dham to Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Jhansi was contested by appellant who filed her written statement denying said facts and reiterated case set up by her in her case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act in additional pleas –Court considering oral and documentary evidence proceeded to hold that appellant has failed to prove her case for cruelty, nor she could prove her case beyond doubt as far as allegation of sharing bed and making physical relation with other men, Court dismissed case of appellant and allowed application of defendant/respondent for restitution of conjugal rights – Against order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi two appeals, First Appeal filed by appellant against order and First Appeal has been preferred against dismissal of case – Held, There is no use of keeping appellant and respondent tied by matrimonial relationship when they cannot live peacefully, since parties are living separately after marriage, appellant has lived for few months in her matrimonial house, she having made allegation of cruelty and desertion against husband and husband having made counter allegations against her marriage has irretrievably broken down – No application for permanent alimony has been filed by appellant, nor any oral prayer was made during course of argument, or at time of reconciliation held in Chamber, appellant is not granted any permanent alimony from respondent – Appeal Allowed. (Paras 49 to 52).

Facts of The case:

Plaintiff/appellant filed Case for annulling marriage on ground that she was married to defendant/ respondent according to Hindu rites and custom –When she was 7 years old, both her parents died, and she was brought up along with her two brothers by her maternal uncle and aunt (Mausa and mausi). – It is they who had performed ceremony of "Kanyadan" and gave dowry as per their status –After marriage, there was constant demand for dowry by in-laws and appellant was not treated well – For three weeks, she stayed at her in-laws house and, thereafter came to her maternal home along with her brother and after living for 15 days, she again went back to her in-laws house from where her husband took her to Gandhi Dham, Gujarat –Defendant/respondent by filing his written statement and in additional pleas, it was stated that appellant did not want to live at Gandhi Dham and was forcing respondent to live at Jhansi –Appellant and her two brothers are not in control of her maternal uncle and aunt –Appellant would quarrel and fight for petty things and she was not interested in doing domestic work and she did not want to live along with family members of respondent and was always pressurizing him to live separately –She had been pressurizing respondent for claiming his share in family property, consequence of which parents of respondent after, giving his share had snapped ties with respondent and appellant –Appellant was having extra marital relation with her brother-in-law (Jija) –Defendant/respondent filed Case for restitution of conjugal rights before Additional Senior Civil Judge –He made same allegation that appellant displayed strange behaviour after returning from her parental house –After being transferred from Gandhi Dham to Court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Jhansi was contested by appellant who filed her written statement denying said facts and reiterated case set up by her in her case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act in additional pleas –Court considering oral and documentary evidence proceeded to hold that appellant has failed to prove her case for cruelty, nor she could prove her case beyond doubt as far as allegation of sharing bed and making physical relation with other men, Court dismissed case of appellant and allowed application of defendant/respondent for restitution of conjugal rights – Against order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi two appeals, First Appeal filed by appellant against order and First Appeal has been preferred against dismissal of case.

Finding of The Court:

There is no use of keeping appellant and respondent tied by matrimonial relationship when they cannot live peacefully, since parties are living separately after marriage, appellant has lived for few months in her matrimonial house, she having made allegation of cruelty and desertion against husband and husband having made counter allegations against her marriage has irretrievably broken down – No application for permanent alimony has been filed by appellant, nor any oral prayer was made during course of argument, or at time of reconciliation held in Chamber, appellant is not granted any permanent alimony from respondent.

Result: Appeal Allowed.