Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 986 (HP)

Vikas Goel v. Deepti Chanana

2017-08-30

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal arises from the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Addl. District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, on 27.11.2015 in H.M.A. Petition No. 40-n/3 OF 2013/11, whereby he allowed the petition preferred thereat under Sections 12/13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by the petitioner/respondent herein and on the proven ground of cruelty passed a decree for dissolution of marriage inter se the parties at lis. 2. The appellant herein standing aggrieved by the rendition of the learned Addl. District Judge hence concerts to reverse it, by preferring an appeal therefrom before this Court. 3. The brief facts of the case are that marriage inter se the parties was solemnized on 14.10.2009 at place Bhatia Palace, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the parties lived together. It is pleaded that before marriage, the respondent/appellant herein has told that he has passed MBA, but after marriage it came to the knowledge of the petitioner/respondent herein that his parents played fraud with her regarding his qualification. The petitioner/respondent herein stayed for few days in the house of the appellant herein after the marriage. At that time, her husband and his family members treated her with cruelty. They also demanded Rs. 2 lacs from the petitioner/respondent herein. Thereafter, the petitioner informed about the cruel act and conduct of the respondent to her parents telephonically on 15.11.2009. Then, her father came to their house and requested her her in-laws to behave with her properly. Thereafter, the respondent remained cordial with her for some time upto 20.11.2009, but again started misbehaving with her. She did not lodge the report in the police station, because the relations will become strained. It is further averred that during the stay in the house of the respondent/appellant herein, the marriage of the parties was never accumulated as there was no physical relation and cohabitation between them and when the matter was referred to the Mediator on 21.6.2012, the respondent threatened the petitioner that he was having nude photos and videography of the petitioner and threatened her to withdraw the present petition, otherwise he will make it public due to which she is in mental shock. It is pleaded that these photos were taken by the respondent/appellant herein during the stay of the petitioner/respondent herein in their house after the marriage, but on her objection, he had assured that he will delete the photos and videos. ON 17.12.2009, the respondent/appellant herein and his family members beaten the petitioner/respondent herein mercilessly and shunted out her from their house after snatching her jewellery and thereafter, they never came to look after her. As per the petitioner/respondent herein, she has been treated with cruelty by the respondent and marriage deserves to be dissolved by a decree of divorce. 4. The respondent/appellant herein contested the petition and filed reply. The marriage is admitted, but cruelty on the part of the respondent/appellant herein is denied. It is specifically denied that Rs.2 lacs were demanded by the respondent from the petitioner and it is stated that the petitioner has concocted a false story. It is also denied that any nude photos or videos were clicked by the respondent and it is also denied that he had blackmailed her. It is pleaded that this new story is made only after the filing of the petition with a view to fill up the lacuna by levelling false allegations. It is further pleaded that the petitioner remained with the respondent till 10.04.2010 and on 11.4.2010, she went with her parents with the consent of the respondent/appellant herein and between this period, there were cordial relations between both the parties as husband and wife and she was kept as his wife in their house with all dignity. The respondent/appellant herein visited the house of parents of the petitioner/respondent herein, but her parents refused to send the petitioner with him and threatened him to involve in a false criminal case. It is also denied that any jewellary of the petitioner was kept by the respondent/appellant herein. The appellant herein/respondent had went to the house of the parents of the petitioner, but they did not allow the petitioner to accompany him and even, the petitioner along with respondent went to Gurudwara, Paonta Sahib on 8.5.2011 and the respondent is ready to live with her and prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 5. The petitioner/respondent herein filed rejoinder to the reply of the respondent/appellant herein, wherein, she denied the contents of the reply besides re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the petition. 6. 5. The petitioner/respondent herein filed rejoinder to the reply of the respondent/appellant herein, wherein, she denied the contents of the reply besides re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the petition. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner to cruelty, as alleged? OPP 2. Relief. 7. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned Addl. District Judge, he allowed the petition of the petitioner/respondent herein. 8. Now the respondent/appellant herein has instituted the instant appeal before this Court wherein he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree by the learned District Judge. 9. Under the impugned rendition, the learned Addl. District Judge concerned, had decreed the apposite petition instituted therebefore by the petitioner/respondent herein, wherein she sought dissolution of her marital ties with the appellant herein. In affording the aforesaid decree, it imputed credence to the apposite averments cast in the apposite petition qua the appellant herein at the time of solemnizing marriage, his, playing fraud with the petitioner/respondent herein, comprised in his disclosing his qualification as MBA, whereas, he was evidently only plus two besides vis-a-vis the averment of the respondent/appellant herein demanding Rs.2 lacs from her, for establishing his business and to the further averment of the appellant herein, on, 15.11.2009 and on 20.11.2009 maltreating the petitioner/respondent herein, as also, to of on 17.12.2009, the appellant herein, in an inebriated condition, mercilessly beating the respondent herein/petitioner. The learned trial Court also imputed credence to the averments cast in the petition qua the appellant herein taking nude photos and videos of the petitioner/respondent herein and also to the averments of his threatening to post them on the Internet, whereupon she was entailed with a severe mental trauma, “credences whereof” stood anchored upon testimonies in tandem therewith deposed by PW-1, succor whereto stood lent by PW-2. The appellant herein had in his reply projected that he did not at any point of time treated the petitioner/respondent herein with cruelty also he denied all the allegations of cruelty levelled against him by the petitioner. 10. The evidence germane to the aforesaid averments cast in the apposite petition stands constituted in the testifications of the petitioner besides in the testimony of PW- 2. 10. The evidence germane to the aforesaid averments cast in the apposite petition stands constituted in the testifications of the petitioner besides in the testimony of PW- 2. The matrimonial strife inter se the parties at contest survived for more than six months. Immensity of the period where upto their internecine marital warfare has lasted, is per se magnificatory of the marital relations inter se them standing irretrievably broken down, whereupon, given the marital relations inter se the parties at contest standing irretrievably broken down, both prudence and justice coax an inference from this Court of the petitioner/respondent herein, rearing an indefeasible ground for ousting the appellant herein from his baulking any rendition of a decree of dissolution of their marital ties. Contrarily, it is the demand of justice qua thereupon the decree as rendered by the learned Additional District Judge warranting vindication. 11. Be that as it may, the ground of cruelty whereupon any party to matrimony seeks dissolution of his/her marital status with the errant spouse, has, both physical as well as mental facets. The cruelty which the petitioner/respondent herein alleges in her petition stands harboured upon the respondent besetting her with mental trauma also with mental turmoil, constituted in the respondent/appellant herein playing fraud with her qua his qualification as also his after solemnizing marriage, his pressurizing the petitioner for bringing money from her parents for his establishing his business, averments whereof stand efficaciously proven. Furthermore, a suggestion was put to the petitioner in her cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/appellant, of hers not taking to wear Sarees on the eve of festivals, suggestions whereof, is communicative of the fact that she was being pressurized by the respondent/appellant herein and his family members to live her life at their behest, factum whereof also constitutes cruelty. Moreover, the petitioner/respondent herein in her testification has also levelled serious allegations against the respondent/appellant qua his taking her nude photographs and videos, testification whereof stands corroborated by PW-2 her mother, absence of adduction of any rebuttal evidence thereto hence renders it to acquire conclusivity. Moreover, the petitioner/respondent herein in her testification has also levelled serious allegations against the respondent/appellant qua his taking her nude photographs and videos, testification whereof stands corroborated by PW-2 her mother, absence of adduction of any rebuttal evidence thereto hence renders it to acquire conclusivity. The conjunctive effect of the respondent/appellant herein evidently playing fraud with the petitioner/respondent herein qua his qualification; his evidently demanding money from her; his evidently maltreating the petitioner/respondent herein with cruelty as also his evidently taking nude photographs and videos of the petitioner, begets the sequel of the petitioner/respondent herein standing beset with mental trauma also her psyche standing beset with excruciating mental turmoil besides agony, wherefrom the apt inference is of the petitioner/respondent herein evidently holding a tenable ground for seeking dissolution of her marital ties with the respondent/appellant herein. 12. Furthermore, the espousal of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant herein that with the petition constituted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., as stood, preferred before the learned trial Magistrate by the petitioner/respondent herein for grant of maintenance standing dismissed, thereupon, the appellant herein proving of his not treating the petitioner/respondent herein with cruelty, is also not sustainable, given the aforesaid petition for grant of maintenance standing dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate, on the ground of the petitioner/respondent herein holding sufficient means to maintain herself, hers being a teacher by profession besides when issues also the evidence adduced thereat being dissimilar vis-a-vis the issues also the evidence existing hereat, thereupon the verdict if any pronounced thereon does not operate as res judicata for hence the instant petition being rendered not maintainable. 13. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusion as arrived by the learned Additional District Judge is based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned trial Court has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment and decree is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.