Court No. - 03

Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 212 of 2022

Appellant :- Smt. Amar Kaur

Respondent :- Deepak Kumar Bhalla

Counsel for Appellant :- Najam Uz Zaman Khan

Counsel for Respondent :- Shireesh Kumar Dwivedi

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

1. Heard Sri Najam Uz Zaman Khan, learned counsel for the defendant-

appellant/ wife and Sri Raghav Arora, learned counsel for the plaintiff-

respondent/ husband.

2. This appeal has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and decree

dated 06.05.2022 in Matrimonial Case No.215 of 2011 (Deepak Kumar Bhalla vs.

Smt. Amar Kaur) passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court

No.01, Aligarh under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submits that at the time of

marriage, the father of the defendant-appellant was not alive and financial

condition of her family was very weak. He submits that the judgment has been

passed ex parte without affording opportunity of hearing to the defendant-

appellant and, therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. He

further submits that merely a sum of Rs.2 lacs has been granted as alimony and

the jewelleries of the defendant-appellant has not been directed to be returned.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that the defendant-

appellant herself did not want to live with the plaintiff-respondent merely on

account of educational qualification of the plaintiff-respondent which amounts to

mental cruelty. He further submits that that the plaintiff-respondent has made

several efforts but the defendant-appellant has never been ready to live with him.

He submits that in fact the plaintiff-respondent has borne expenses of marriage

for reason that the financial condition of the family of the defendant-appellant

was very bad. He submits that the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-

2

appellant lived together only for about one and a half mounts after marriage

and thereafter they are living separately. He submits that the defendant-

appellant is an assistant teacher in a government college. He further submits

that the defendant-appellant has been appearing and contesting the aforesaid

matrimonial case and, therefore, it is incorrect to say that the impugned

judgment is ex parte. He further submits that the allegation that the defendant-

appellant gave Rs.2 lacs to the plaintiff-respondent is totally incorrect and

could not be proved by her before the court below.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels

for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.

6. Undisputedly, the defendant-appellant was married with the plaintiff-

respondent on 20.04.2008. She remained in matrimonial house for about one

and a half months. She came to her paternal house on 13.06.2008 and

thereafter kept no relation with the plaintiff-respondent/ husband. The

defendant-appellant is an assistant teacher in a government college. The

plaintiff-respondent does some business. His education, according to the

defendant-appellant, is merely High School which fact was suppressed at the

time of marriage. According to the plaintiff-respondent, every fact was

disclosed to the defendant-appellant before marriage. She herself opted not to

live with the plaintiff-respondent. In paragraph-18 of the written statement, the

defendant-appellant herself has stated that she is ready and willing to break

marriage tie by mutual settlement provided the plaintiff-respondent returns an

amount of Rs.2 lacs, entire jewelleries, stri-dhan and dowry items to her. She

alleged that the plaintiff alleged that she gave a sum of Rs.2 lacs to the

plaintiff-respondent but she could not prove it. She stated that she gave a sum

of Rs.2 lacs on 10.07.2008 to the plaintiff-respondent but she could not

explain and lead any evidence that under what circumstances, she alle