Court:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE Prafulla C. Pant & Servesh Kumar Gupta
ANUPAMA PANDEY Vs. ASHUTOSH PANDEY On 22 April 2011
Family Courts Act, 1984 — Section 19 — Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13 — Divorce — Cruelty — Appellant married and two children were born out of wedlock — Incidents of cruelty proved by PW 1 which are corroborated from statement of PWs 3 and 4 — Cruelty includes insulting husband and other members of his family in presence of guests — Foul language also used against husband and in-laws — Husband was not allowed to talk to his children on phone when he was in Holland — Reassessment of evidence on record proves case for divorce on ground of cruelty — Trial Court’s judgment upheld — No force in appeal.
This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.4.2009, passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Divorce Petition No. 1 of 2006, whereby said Court has granted decree of divorce to the husband (present respondent) moved under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, and perused the lower Court record.
3. Brief facts of the case, are that appellant Anupama got married to respondent Ashutosh Pandey on 9.7.2000, following the Hindu rites. At that point of time the husband was employed with Infosis Bangalore and working on deputation in Japan. In September 2002, he came to Bangalore whereafter he got job in Phillips Consumer Electronics N.B., Holland. Both the parties to matrimony left for Holland and remained there till 18th of February, 2004. They came back to India on 19.2.2004. Meanwhile, twins (namely Kartikeya and Madhav) were born out of the wedlock on 10th of July, 2003 in Holland. The relations between the parties started souring after they came back to India. It is pleaded by the husband in the divorce petition that the appellant insulted him time and again publicly and caused mental torture. It has been further pleaded by the husband that the appellant spoke foul language against her father-in-law. After the husband went back to Holland, the appellant refused to talk to him when he called from there. As such, on the ground of cruelty, the petitioner (present respondent) sought decree of divorce against the appellant.
4. The appellant contested the petition filed by her husband and filed written statement before the Trial Court. The marriage between the parties was admitted to her. She also admitted that twins were born out of the wedlock. It has also been admitted that the petitioner (present respondent) was an Engineer who served in Holland, where the children were born. However, the rest of the pleadings were denied by the appellant. She pleaded that she was ousted by her husband and in-laws from their house in Kanpur. In the additional pleas she stated that after her husband filed divorce petition, she also filed a criminal case relating to offence punishable under Section 406, I.P.C., as her Stridhan was not returned. It is further pleaded by her that the present respondent did not care to see as to how the appellant is maintaining herself and the two children.
5. By way of amendment in the pleading of the parties before the Trial Court, it has been brought on record, which is admitted fact, that after coming back from Holland, the appellant completed Ph.D and got the job of Assistant Professor in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology.
6. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the Trial Court framed following issues:
(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce on the ground mentioned in the petition?
(ii) Whether the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, is not maintainable?
(iii) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled?
After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing them, the Trial Court found that the husband has proved his case for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Trial Court also found that on the point of maintainability of the petition nothing was argued and said issue was decided is negative. With these findings the Trial Court granted decree of divorce on the petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
7. Admittedly, the appellant got married to the respondent in the year 2000, and two children were born out of the wedlock, as mentioned above. It is also clear that the parties to the matrimony lived in Holland till February 2004, whereafter the petitioner (husband) along with the appellant and two children came back to India. The incidents of cruelty are proved by PW1 Ashutosh Pandey which are corroborated from the statement of PW3 Ballabh Vajpayee and PW4 Ajay Misra. The incidents of cruelty include insulting him and other members of his family by the appellant in the presence of the guests who had come in the house of the husband. It also includes the foul language used by the wife against the husband and in-laws. PW1 Ashutosh Pandey has stated that when the wife refused to go back with him to Holland, and he tried to contact on phone with her and the children, he was not allowed to talk to them, nor the wife called back him.
8. Having reassessed the evidence on record, and after going through the statements of DW1 Rajneesh Kumar Pandey, DW2 Anupama (appellant) and DW3 Om Shankar Misra, we agree with the conclusion given by the Trial Court that the husband has successfully proved a case for divorce on the ground of cruelty against him.
9. Therefore, we do not find force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. It is also pertinent to mention here that the parties were in litigation also under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in which the maintenance was awarded by the Trial Court directed to be paid by the present respondent to his wife and children.
10. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Decree of divorce is affirmed. Costs easy.