SUNITA DEVI Vs. JAI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a wife's appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, who dismissed the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, of the appellant Smt. Sunita Devi.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Sunita Devi-appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her husband Jai Kishan and she sought a decree for dissolution of marriage which was solemnised on 25.6.1994 at Jind according to Hindu rites. As per the appellant-petitioner, marriage was duly consummated but no child was born out of this wedlock. It is alleged by the appellant-petitioner that after her marriage with the respondent, she came to know that the respondent and his parents were very greedy persons and they were not satisfied with the dowry articles given in the marriage by her parents and started demanding dowry items from her parents and started treating her with cruelty. The respondent is a man of bad habits and is under the influence of his mother. On 24.9.1996, when the appellant-petitioner came from outside then she fund the respondent and Babli (her Jethani) in a compromising position and then the respondent pounced upon her to kill her by administering spray poison but she was saved and a case was also registered against the respondent and Babli in this regard in the police station. The dowry articles are still in the custody of the respondent and now the appellant-petitioner cannot bear the inhuman treatment given to her. Hence, she filed the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.

(3.) Notice of the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was given to the respondent who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to him, he never treated the appellant-petitioner with cruelty nor inhuman treatment was given to her and that he is not a man of bad habits. He and Babli never poisoned her nor he has got any illicit relations with his sister-in-law and that the allegations are totally false. The appellant-petitioner never found the respondent and Babli in a compromising position. With this prayer, the respondent stated that the petition be dismissed.