AFR

Reserved on 22.2.2021

Delivered on 10.3.2021

Court No. - 21

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. 815 of 2017

Appellant :- Deepak

Respondent :- Smt. Radha Rani

Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Sharma

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

(Per : Justice Ajit Singh)

1.

We had reserved the Judgment and kept it

for pronouncement on 8^th 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

[2]

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

[3]

t