Back
2009 Supreme(UK) 198
2009 (2) UAD 39
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.S. Verma
First Appeal No. 88 of 2007
GAUTAM CHADDHA – Appellant
Versus
SMT. RICHA CHADDHA – Respondent
Decided on : 23.04.2009
For the Appellant :Mr. L.P. Naithani, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Km. Prabha Noliyal, Advocate
Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sec. 13(1)(i-a) & 23(b) — Cruelty — Suit for divorce filed by wife for — As per the evidence of the plaintiff/wife, she was assaulted by the husband on several dates from 10.03.2000 to 08.08.2003 and that, she had been continuously treated by the husband with cruelty and that, from 20.10.2003, they were living separately — It was held that had there been only one or two acts of cruelty of the year 2000 or 2001, it could have been said that since the parties lived together till 20th October 2003, as such, the wife had condoned the acts of cruelty committed by the husband — But, since the acts of cruelty are shown to have been continued, it cannot be said that the wife is not entitled to decree of divorce on the ground that she condoned acts of her husband — No any error of law committed by the trial court in coming to the conclusion that the husband has treated the wife with cruelty. (Paras 2, 3, 6 to 12)
fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk&13¼1½ ¼1&,½ vkSj 23(b) & dwjrk & iRuh }kjk fookg foPNsnu gsrq okn nk;j fd;k x;k & vihykFkhZ ds lcwr ds vk/kkj ij ifr }kjk fnukad 10-3-2000 ls 8-8-2003 dh vof/k esa vusdksa ckj ml ij geyk fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj ifr }kjk mldk fujUrj dwjrk ds lkFk mRihM+u fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj fnukad 20-10-2003 ls os i`Fkd&i`Fkd jg jgs Fks & ;g fu.kZ; fn;k x;k fd ;fn ,d ;k nks ckj o"kZ 2000 ;k 2001 esa dwjrk dk O;ogkj gqvk gksrk rc ;g dgk tk ldrk Fkk fd fnukad 20-10-2003 ls i{kdkjksa ds vyx&vyx jgus ls iRuh }kjk ifr ds dwjrk ds O;ogkj dks {kek dj fn;k x;k gksxk ijUrq ih MCY;w fd dwjrk dk O;ogkj fujUrj gksuk n'kkZ;k x;k gS rc ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd iRuh rykd dh gdnkj bl vk/kkj ij ugha gS fd mlds }kjk vius ifr ds dwjrk ds O;ogkj dks {kek dj fn;k x;k Fkk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds bl fu.kZ; esa dksbZ dkuwuh =qfV ugha dh xbZ fd ifr }kjk iRuh ds lkFk dwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k x;k gSA ¼izLrj 2] 3] 6 ls 12½
[Per : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral)]
This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.09.2007, passed by Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in Suit No. 02 of 2004, whereby the petition for divorce, filed by the respondent, has been allowed and marriage between the parties has been dissolved.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Lower Court Record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-Richa Chaddha got married to appellant-Gautam Chaddha on 13.12.1999, in accordance with Hindu Rites, at Delhi. Twins, namely SanaChaddha and Sparsh Chaddha, born out of the wedlock on 25.01.2002. Since 20th October 2003, the parties are living separately from each other. The respondent filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that she has been treated with cruelty by her husband. She has further pleaded that she was harassed for demand of dowry. She has further pleaded that her husband Gautam Chaddha (present appellant) is living in adultery. The details of cruelty are also pleaded date-wise in the petition, alleging that the husband insulted the wife by hurling abuses at her. It is also alleged that the respondent was assaulted by the appellant. It is further pleaded by the respondent that conditions were made intolerable by the appellant after delivery of twins, as he was more violent thereafter. It is also alleged that on 08.08.2003, the appellant attempted to strangulate the respondent. It is also stated by respondent in her petition that she lodged First Information Report relating to harassment for no fulfillment of demand of dowry against her husband and in-laws, in which in-laws were arrested and released on bail. With the petition for divorce, the respondent also made prayer for alimony and custody of children, and return of the articles given in marriage.
4. The petition was contested by the husband (present appellant) and written statement was filed by him before the trial court, in which marriage between the parties is admitted. Birth of twins is also admitted. However, all allegations made against husband (present appellant) were denied by him. It is pleaded by the husband that it was the respondent (wife) who treated the appellant with cruelty. It is further pleaded that the husband made every effort to make his wife happy in the matrimonial house. It is further stated that he deposited money amounting Rs. 6,25,000/- in the joint accounts of the parties, including Fixed Deposit Receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent. The allegations, relating to demand of dowry are specifically denied and it is alleged that a false case was lodged by the wife. It is further pleaded that appellant neither treated the respondent with cruelty nor he lived adulterous life. He has stated that he took his wife to Europe. It is also stated that he took every care of the children born out of the wedlock. It is also stated that respondent has shown inhumane behaviour by leaving the kids in the house of the husband, who are still living with him. It is further stated that for the sake of children, the appellant made every effort for reconciliation, but failed. It is alleged that the respondent is a woman of free and luxurious life. It is further stated that all the articles given in marriage were kept by the wife in the locker provided to her, which she operates, as such, there is nothing to be returned to her. It is also stated that the respondent (wife) is a earning member and not entitled to any alimony from the husband, as he is maintaining the children also.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues :-
i. Whether the defendant treated the plaintiff with cruelty?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief claimed by her against the defendant?
iii.
