AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sharma, ACJ.
Present appeal is filed against judgment and decree dated 08.05.2017 passed by Judge, Family Court, Almora whereby Civil Marriage Suit No. 2 of
2017 filed by the respondent husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and divorce decree was passed.
Brief facts of the present case are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.04.2008 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Husband/
respondent is working in Indian Army. Differences between the parties cropped up immediately after the marriage. After 7 months of marriage,
appellant wife left her matrimonial house. She wanted to live separately with her husband only, so husband took her with him in Kanpur i.e. place of
posting. In Kanpur also, the behaviour of the wife did not change and quarrel erupted between the parties on petty issues. From Kanpur
husband/respondent was transferred to Arunachal Pradesh. In Arunachal Pradesh due to duty restrictions, it was not possible for him /respondent to
take her wife along with him, therefore, he shifted his wife again to with his parents. Two months, thereafter, appellant/wife left her matrimonial home
and went to her parental house. Therefrom, she made complaints to the superior officers of husband. Thereafter, husband sent a notice on 01.03.2012
to appellant wife for stopping his harassment. On this, wife and her parents reached husband’s home and threatened him to falsely implicate him
and his family. Husband lodged a complaint to the police station regarding this threat. Thereafter, wife lodged an FIR and filed a case under Section
125 Cr.P.C. Husband filed a case for divorce but the same was dismissed on some technical ground. Thereafter, husband again filed case for divorce,
which was decreed vide impugned judgment dated 08.05.2017 in favour of the husband. Feeling aggrieved, appellant wife has approached this Court.
Heard Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for respondent and perused the record.
Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the appellant has submitted that Civil Suit No. 7 of 2015 is barred by the principle of res judicata.
Per contra, Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate has submitted that vide order dated 24.05.2013, Suit No. 12 of 2012 filed by the respondent husband
was rejected, however, in appeal, Additional District Judge, vide order dated 12.02.2014 granted permission to the husband/ appellant to withdraw the
appeal with liberty to file fresh divorce petition.
In view of the above submission, we do not find any force in the submission made by Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the appellant.
Appellant stated in her statement that just after one month of marriage, respondent husband went back to his duties. Appellant/ wife alleged that her
husband used to quarrel with her on phone and made demand of dowry. But in support of her allegation, she had not produced any witness. Even her
father has not categorically stated regarding demand of dowry. He simply stated that there were quarrels between the parties on petty issues but not
with regard to demand of dowry. She further stated that her husband came after 6-7 months. Thereafter, respondent husband took her to Kanpur.
They started residing in government accommodation. When parties were residing in Kanpur, his husband used to torture her. He locked her inside the
house when he went to duty and did not give food. While parties were residing in Kanpur, appellant wife did not make any complaint either to superior
officers of husband respondent or police station or Army Women Welfare Association regarding torture or ill treatment meted out to her. She stated
that in order to save her marriage, she made complaint to CO, Commander and Brigadier. She further stated that she made complaint to the senior
officers of the respondent husband while she was in Kanpur but she had not filed any copy of the complaint.
In our view, appellant ought to have made complaint to the senior officer regarding cruelty meted out to her when she was residing with her
husband in Kanpur. Appellant was residing in Government accommodation where it was highly improbable for the respondent to lock the appellant
inside the house because respondent husband is member of disciplined force and this conduct would go against him and no witness has been produced
in support of such contention. It appears that as an afterthought, she made complaint when her husband was posted in Arunachal Pradesh. Appellant
stated that she remained in her matrimonial home till 08.07.2011.
In our opinion, she stated so in order to make out a case. If it is believed that she resided in the matrimonial home till 2011, then how she did not
know where her sisters-in-law got married, who were married after her marriage but prior to 2011.
She also stated that respondent husband tendered his apology in writing in order to save their marriage. In February, 2009, appellant wife left the
matrimonial home. On 17.02.2012, she lodged an FIR. At that time, father-in-law was ill and following the FIR, he along with other family members
was arrested and after getting bail from court, her father-in-law left for heavenly abode.
In our view, appellant wife had registered the FIR against all the family members. She even roped her ailing father-in-law, who after some time of
registration of the FIR left for heavenly abode. In our opinion, an ailing man, who is almost on the death bed cannot make demand of dowry. Later on,
all the family members including husband were acquitted of the charges leveled in the dowry case.
Appellant wife on the one hand in her statement stated that she wants to live with her husband but on the other hand, she stated that she is afraid
of her husband and she has life threat from him. She also stated that her husband wants to get second marriage but she failed to substantiate her
contention. She levelled general allegation dowry demand and harassment against her husband but failed to substantiate her allegations.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. In our view Trial Judge has discussed the
evidence very elaborately.
Judgment passed by the learned trial Judge is hereby affirmed.
No order as to costs.
Let lower court record be sent back forthwith.