Point of Law: Dissolution of marriage - Cruelty - When a person undergoes a trial in which he is acquitted of allegation of offence under Section 498A of IPC, levelled by wife against husband, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty has meted out to husband.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Singh, J.

1. We had reserved the Judgment and kept it for pronouncement on 8th March 2021 but as the advocates were on strike, we did not pronounce the Judgment on that day. We have kept the matter for pronouncement today as it was made to understand that the strike would be called off today.

2. Heard Sri Anurag Sharma for the appellant.

3. By way of this appeal, the appellant has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.9.2017 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, where he had instituted a Suit, being Case No.544 of 2015, for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent.

4. The factual scenario as it goes to be divulged before the learned Family Court Judge is that the appellant/ applicant herein, who shall be referred to as “the appellant” and the respondent would be herein after referred to as “the opponent” as they appear before the subordinate court.

5. The appellant got married with the respondent on 10.12.2009 and on 25.10.2010 they were blessed with the son, who is now 11 year of age and is in the custody of the defendant. Most unfortunately on 7.5.2012, the opponent herein complained against the appellant that he had perpetrated cruelty and had demanded dowry and that is how he and his parents had committed an offence under Section 498 of the I.P. Code.

6. After waiting for 3 years, the appellant herein filed a petition for desolation and harassment. The said matter was filed on 20.4.2015. Despite service of notice, the opponent did not appear. The appellant adduced documentary evidence and filed his own Affidavit which came to be numbered as 27 ka. His evidence and examination-in-chief was in the form of an Affidavit. Most unfortunately on 25.9.2017, the learned Judge dismissed the matter.

7. In the petition, it was averred that both the parties belong to a profess Hindu religion and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Ritual on 10.12.2009. It is averred that no dowry was offered by the opponent or taken by the appellant or his family members. This was the first marriage of the appellant. As far as the opponent is concerned, it was her first marriage. The averment in the petition filed before the Family Court went on to paint a picture whereby it was brought on record that it was the opponent, who was forcing the appellant to stay separate from his parents and she would use bad language. She would colour in the house and try to pressurize the appellant. It is alleged that she has threatened the appellant that if he did not separate from his parents, she would file false cases against him.

8. The appellant further contended that it was the father and the daughter, who pressurized him for staying separate from his parents which he was not willing to do. He even succumbed to pressure and started staying separately. The appellant was serving as a salesman with Mukesh Jain Jewellers Private Limited and his time of service was 09.30 a.m. to 08.00 p.m.

9. The respondent did not state any pleadings in written statement is an admitted position of fact and avoided coming to the witness box so that she may be put to examination-in-chief or cross-examination. This itself is enough to come to the conclusion that the averments made in the Suit are unrebutted. A party must state his or her own case on oath and if that is done, a presumption would arise that the case set out by the petitioner or the plaintiff or the applicant as in our case is correct and that she had filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. A copy of Affidavit on her behalf on 26.5.2015 was also filed to which reply was filed by the present appellant herein.

10. The family court waited for 2 years and 2 months. The respondent absented herself thereafter. In our case, therefore, a situation is akined to the decisions passed by the various High Courts and Privy Council in the case of Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao, AIR 1999 SC page 1441 and also in Sardar Gurbaksh Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh and ano