* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: May 09, 2013 Judgment Pronounced on: May 23, 2013 + FAO 108/2013 SUMAN SINGH .....Appellant Represented by: Ms.Padmini Gupta, Advocate versus SANJAY SINGH ..... Respondent Represented by: Respondent in person FAO 109/2013 SUMAN SINGH .....Appellant Represented by: Ms.Padmini Gupta, Advocate versus SANJAY SINGH ..... Respondent Represented by: Respondent in person CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. On February 26, 1999, respondent Sanjay and appellant Suman got happily married and the two were blessed with a daughter born on June 15, 2002 followed by another bundle of delight, another daughter born on February 10, 2006.

2. Unfortunately, relations soured with passage of time. Sanjay sought dissolution of the marriage alleging cruelty and Suman sought restitution of her conjugal rights.

3. Both Sanjay and Suman reached the Court on July 19, 2010. It appears both were aware of the action proposed to be taken by the other. Petition filed by Sanjay under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on July 19, 2010, which was the date when Suman’s application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also filed.

4. Whereas Suman alleged that within a few days of the marriage Sanjay’s behaviour changed because he was aggrieved of insufficient dowry brought by her notwithstanding her family members having spent lavishly when the two got married; but she bore him. His behaviour turned rude and he started picking up quarrel on trivial matters and additionally he would even turn physical, but she continued to suffer to maintain the family bond but realized that Sanjay have developed intimacy with another woman and had left the matrimonial house compelling her to seek restitution of her conjugal rights. Sanjay pleaded that the marriage was a dowry-less marriage and during 10 years thereafter he was regularly harassed and tortured by Suman who degraded and insulted him at the drop of the hat and even would misbehave with his parents. To save the marriage he left his parents and since January 2005 started living separately from his parents. But Suman’s attitude did not change. In the year 2006 he purchased Flat No.91, Pocket IV, Sector- 2, Rohini in Suman’s name hoping that she would improve. But she did not. She even started visiting his office and created ugly scenes by abusing him. She not only threatened but lodged false complaints with the police alleging false facts against him and his parents. She repeatedly threatened to commit suicide and leave a note recording false facts to teach him and his parents a lesson.

5. Sanjay’s written statement to Suman’s petition is his version pleaded in the petition filed by him seeking dissolution of the marriage; of course he denied the insinuations against him, and as regards Suman, she denied the insinuation against her but pleaded that theirs was a love marriage solemnized on March 22, 1997 without telling the parents and that subsequently, in front of her parents she and Sanjay performed the rituals of marriage on February 26, 1999. For 3 years after the marriage she and Sanjay lived with a friend and shifted to the house of Sanjay’s parents in May 2002 but since they never approved of the marriage she and Sanjay shifted to a residential accommodation before Sanjay purchased a flat in her name in Rohini part sale consideration whereof was paid by her mother; but would continue to harass and misbehave with her. He developed intimate relations with a lady named Jyoti and therefore wanted Suman to divorce her and that Sanjay was pressurizing her mother to transfer ownership of her property situated in Sultanpuri in his favour.

6. In HMA No.527/2010 filed by Suman, following issues were settled:-

“1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the restitution of conjugal rights as prayed? OPP

2. Relief.”

7. In HMA No.685/2010 filed by Sanjay, following issues were se