Advocates:
KAMINI JAISWAL

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 23

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 812 of 2004

PETITIONER:

Naveen Kohli

RESPONDENT:

Neelu Kohli

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/2006

BENCH:

B.N. AGRAWAL,A.K. MATHUR & DALVEER BHANDARI

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

Dalveer Bhandari, J

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the

Allahabad High Court dated 07.07.2003 passed by the

Division Bench in First Appeal No.323 of 2003.

The appellant and the respondent are husband and

wife. The appellant has filed a petition under the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce. The Family Court after

comprehensively dealing with the matter ordered

cancellation of marriage between the parties under

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was

solemnized on 20.11.1975 and directed the appellant to

pay Rs.5 lacs as her livelihood allowance. The appellant

deposited the amount as directed.

The respondent aggrieved by the said judgment

preferred First Appeal before the Division Bench of the

Allahabad High Court. After hearing the parties the

appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the Family

Court, Kanpur City seeking divorce and annulment of the

marriage was dismissed.

The appellant aggrieved by the said judgment of the

High Court had preferred special leave petition under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This Court

granted special leave to appeal to the appellant.

Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this

appeal are recapitulated.

The appellant, Naveen Kohli got married to Neelu

Kohli on 20.11.1975. Three sons were born out of the

wedlock of the parties. The appellant constructed three

factories with the intention of providing a separate

factory for his three sons. He also constructed bungalow

no.7/36 A for their residence. The parties got all their

three sons admitted and educated in a public school in

Nanital. According to the appellant, the respondent is

bad tempered and a woman of rude behaviour. After

marriage, she started quarrelling and misbehaving with

the appellant and his parents and ultimately, the

appellant was compelled to leave the parental residence

and started to reside in a rented premises from May

1994. According to the version of the appellant, the

respondent in collusion with her parents got sufficient

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 23

business and property transferred in her name.

The appellant alleged that in the month of May

1994, when he along with the respondent and their

children visited Bombay to attend the golden jubilee

marriage anniversary of his father-in-law, he noticed that

the respondent was indulging in an indecent manner and

found her in a compromising position with one Biswas

Rout. Immediately thereafter, the appellant started living

separately from the respondent since May 1994. The

appellant suffered intense physical and mental torture.

According to the appellant, the respondent had

withdrawn Rs.9,50,000/- from the Bank Account of the

appellant and deposited the same in her account.

The appellant alleged that the respondent got a false

first information report registered against him under

Sections 420/467/468 and 471 IPC which was registered

as Case No.156 of 1995. According to him, the

respondent again got a case under Sections 323/324

I.P.C. registered in the police station Panki, Kanpur City

and efforts were made to get the appellant arrested.

The appellant filed a Civil Suit No. 1158/1996

against the respondent. It was also reported that the

appellant was manhandled at the behest of the

respondent and an FIR No.156 of 1996 was filed by the

eldest son at the behest of the respondent against the

appellant in police station, Panki complaining that the

appellant had physically beaten her son, Nitin Kohli.

The respondent