ANIL KUMAR Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned rendition recorded on 7th May, 2008 by the learned Presiding Officer/A.D.J., Fast Track Court, Hamirpur in H.M.P. No. 27 of 2006/RBT No. 44/06, whereby he declined to the petitioner an apposite relief ventilated in the petition aforestated constituted by him therebefore.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in the month of December, 1996 at Tika Hayod, P.O. Awahdevi, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. in accordance with Hindu rites. Out of the wedlock of the parties, one son namely Abahy aged 8 years was born, who is presently residing with the respondent. It is averred that the respondent remained with the petitioner after marriage for about six months and even during this period she used to leave the house of the petitioner every now and then at her own will. However, in the month of July, 1997, the respondent quarreled with the petitioner and the members of his family alleging that the petitioner had illicit relations with his sisterin-law and thereafter left the house of the petitioner and did not return. Such allegations made by the respondent are averred to be false and baseless. It is further alleged that the respondent compelled the petitioner to stay in the house of her parents at Tika Hayod, but the respondent did not want to live in the house of the petitioner. The respondent also constructed a house at Tika Awahdevi, Tappa Mewa, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Hamirpur, H.P. It is further averred that the petitioner tried his best to visit the house of the parents of the respondent and to bring her back and after this, several attempts were made by the petitioner alongwith his relatives and other respectable persons to bring the respondent back to his house, but the respondent refused to join the company of the petitioner. It is further averred that from July, 1997 till the filing of the present petition, there was no relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and the respondent and it has now become impossible to live together. It is further alleged that in the month of January, 2006, the respondent alongwith President All India Mahila Samiti, Smt. Satya Galoda, Brahmi Devi, Nazir Bibi and others threatened the petitioner and the members of his family with dire consequences and pressurized him to sign on a compromise deed forcibly, though no such compromise was effected between the parties. Hence, it is alleged that the respondent has withdrawn from the society of the petitioner for the last eight and half years without any rhyme or reason. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Vide her detailed reply, the respondent has contested the petition of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to a decree of divorce since he has himself kept a concubine namely Leena alias Meera, daughter of Shri Durga Dass, who is also serving in Mission Public School, Anni, District Kullu. The petitioner has also an illegitimate son from the aforesaid concubine. It is denied that the respondent has left the house of the petitioner after picking up a quarrel. It is submitted that the respondent has been visiting the house of her in-laws at village Kakkar and at the residence of her mother-in-law at village Kotli (Mandi) and also at the place of the posting of the petitioner at G.H.S. Ganvi, District Shimla. It is further submitted that the respondent never levelled allegations of illicit relations of the petitioner with his sister-in-law and no quarrel ever took place between the petitioner and the respondent. Hence, it is submitted that the aforesaid allegations have been manipulated by the petitioner in order to torture and harass the respondent at the instance of his mother and father. It is further submitted that the respondent also attended the marriage of the relative of the petitioner at Devgarh (Mandi) and thereafter at village Kakkar. The respondent also stayed at Shimla with her mother-in-law where she was serving in the Medical Department. When her mother-in-law was transferred to Kotli (Mandi), the respondent also stayed with her. It is also denied that the respondent does not want to live with the petitioner, though the respondent has always been ready to stay with the petitioner anywhere at the place of his posting or in his residence. It is further submitted that the petitioner compelled the respondent to arrange for a piece of land, where a separate house could be constructed and with the pressure of the petitioner, the respondent procured a piece of land where the house was constructed at village Saroun near Awahdevi. It is further submitted that an amicable compromise was arrived at between the parties with the help of Janbandi Mahila Samiti on 9.1.2006 and on 12.1.2006, the petitioner again violated the terms and conditions of the compromise and filed the present petition for dissolution of marriage just to harass the respondent physically, mentally and economically and also to legalise his illicit relations with the aforesaid concubine. It is alleged that the petitioner threatened her not to live with him in his house at Kakkar. It is further submitted that when the child was born to the respondent at Kamla Nehru Hospital at Shimla, the petitioner and the members of his family never turned up to look-after her despite the knowledge of the same. The respondent also remained unconscious for about 14 hours after the delivery, but the petitioner did not care to take care of her. Under the circumstances, the respondent was looked after and taken care of by her parents. The petitioner visited the house of the parents of the respondent only after one year of the birth of the child alongwith his relatives and even then the petitioner was not serious to take the respondent and her son to his house. It is further alleged that the respondent also visited village Kotli alongwith her son, but the mother of the petitioner did not allow her to enter the house. It is further submitted that the respondent performed her matrimonial obligations like a Hindu wife and never refused to join the company of the petitioner, rather it is the petitioner who is not willing to keep the respondent with him. It is further submitted that at the time of filing the petition, the petitioner and the respondent were living together at village Kakkar from 12.1.2006 to 12.2.2006 as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid compromise. The other allegations have also been denied.