Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Bench: JUSTICE Prafulla C. Pant & Sudhanshu Dhulia
Anandi Devi Vs. Komal Kumar On 2 December 2010
Wife made no attempt to come back to her husband’s house nor tried to contact him over phone — Husband has sufficiently proved on record that he was subjected to cruelty by wife and entitled to divorce.
1. This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20th of May, 2010, passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal, in Matrimonial Suit No. 84 of 2007, whereby said Court has granted decree of divorce in favour of the husband (present respondent).
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the lower Court record.
3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant got married to the respondent on 18.2.2006, at Jeetpur, Kotdwar, whereafter, for some time they lived together. There is no issue born out of the wedlock. The husband (present respondent) filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against his wife (present appellant) for decree of divorce on the ground that she treated him with cruelty. It is pleaded in the petition that the wife used to hurl abuses at her husband. It is also pleaded that she not only quarrelled with her husband, time and again, but also threatened him to implicate in a false case after committing suicide. It is specifically mentioned in the petition that twice the appellant (wife) attempted to take insecticide, but somehow her life was saved. It is also mentioned in the petition filed by the husband before the Trial Court that she gave a written apology at the police outpost Hathibarkala, P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun, that she would not commit the mistake again. The husband has further pleaded that still the wife did not change her behaviour. Hence, the suit.
4. Appellant Anandi Devi contested the suit before the Trial Court and filed her written statement in which she admitted having got married to Komal Kumar. It is also not disputed that there is no issue out of the wedlock. However, the wife pleaded in her written statement before the Trial Court that her husband and in-laws used to demand dowry, and on its non-fulfilment, she was subjected to cruelty. As to the written apology she stated that her husband got signed some blank papers. It is admitted by the wife that she came back to the parental house on 11.9.2007, but she has pleaded that she was subjected to cruelty, and had to leave her husband’s house.
5. The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed following two issues:
(i) Whether, the husband was treated with cruelty by his wife, as alleged?
(ii) Whether, the husband was entitled to the decree of divorce, prayed by him?
6. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Trial Court found that the husband has sufficiently proved cruelty committed as against him, and decreed the suit for divorce. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 20th of May, 2010, passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal, in Matrimonial Suit No. 84 of 2007, this appeal is filed by the wife.
7. Admittedly, the parties are married to each other. It is also not disputed that there is no issue born out of the wedlock. It is also clear from the record that since August 2007, the parties are not living together. The allegations of cruelty are proved by the husband by filing an affidavit before the Trial Court. He has affirmed all the pleas taken in the petition. He was subjected to cross- examination when he appeared as P.W. 1 Komal Kumar before the Trial Court. It has come in the statement of Komal Kumar that he was subjected to cruelty at the hands of appellant Anandi Devi. She used to hurl abuses, and gave threat to implicate her husband in a false case after consuming poison. He has further stated that she took insecticide twice, and when the matter was reported to police, she gave apology in writing. D.W. 1 Anandi Devi, who was examined before the Trial Court, admitted that insecticide was taken by her and she was taken to hospital, but her case is that she was made to take insecticide by her husband. However, she failed to explain as to why she did not make any complaint in this regard to the police or any other authority. On weighing the statements of P.W. 1 Komal Kumar and D.W. 1 Anandi Devi, oath against oath, we find that the statement made by the husband appears to be correct. It is admitted by D.W. 1 Anandi Devi in her statement that she made no effort to come back to her husband’s house, nor she tried to contact him over phone.
8. In the above circumstances, we concur with the view taken by the Trial Court that the husband has sufficiently proved on the record that he was subjected to cruelty by his wife, and as such, entitled to decree of divorce. However, we are conscious of the fact that if divorced, the wife: (present appellant) will have difficulty in maintaining herself. Learned Counsel for the parties disclosed before us that the husband is a labour, and wife is doing menial work for her earning. Considering the economic status of the parties we think it just and proper to direct the husband to pay a lump sum amount of permanent alimony of Rs. 1,50,000 to the appellant as a condition precedent for divorce.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with the direction that the decree of divorce passed by the Trial Court shall stand affirmed on payment of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand only) as lump sum permanent alimony to be paid by the husband Komal Kumar to his wife Anandi Devi (appellant), within a period of three months from today. The husband may pay said amount to his wife or deposit the same in her favour before the Trial Court, within the period allowed by this Court. If the permanent alimony as directed above is paid or deposited within time, the decree of divorce passed by the Trial Court shall stand affirmed. In case the husband (present respondent) commits default in payment of lump sum permanent alimony as directed above, this appeal shall stand allowed, and decree of divorce shall stand set aside. Costs easy.
Appeal disposed of.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for legal consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
If you have any query related to gender biased laws join SahodarWhatsapp Groups by sending Whatsapp message “Subscribe” to Sahodar Trust No. 9811850498