Decided on August 30,2012

RENU Appellant


- (1.) This appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2006, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Petition No. 343 of 2004, whereby the petition filed by the appellant-wife for seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and for return of streedhan under Section 27 of the said Act was dismissed.
(2.) Marriage between appellant Renu with respondent Rakesh Kannojia was solemnized on 16.11.2002 at Dehradun. Appellant Renu moved a petition under Sections 13 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for a decree of divorce and also for return of her streedhan, detailed and specified in the list enclosed with the petition. It was pleaded in the petition that when the appellant-wife reached her matrimonial home after marriage, respondent husband showed his displeasure by saying that the articles given in the marriage were cheap and were of inferior quality. He also lamented that father of the appellant-wife did not give Maruti car and a cash of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the marriage. On 19.11.2002, when the appellant-wife came to her parental home along with respondent-husband, the latter told her father that he did not give quality articles in dowry and even almirah was not given. On this, father of the appellant- wife gave a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to her motherin-law Munni Devi for purchasing almirah. On 20.11.2002, she returned to her matrimonial home at Delhi. There, she was harassed by her in-laws saying that her father promised to spend rupees ten lac in the marriage, but did not fulfill his promise. It was also pleaded by the appellant-wife in the petition that she used to do all the household chores but she was, at times, deprived of the meals. The respondent along with his parents used to keep the kitchen out of bonds for her. They asked her to wash the blankets at wee hours, as they were not happy with her for not bringing washing machine from her parental home. In December 2002, her in-laws demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- from the father of the appellant, so that they could purchase a new house after selling the old one. Since early morning of 13.03.2003, inlaws of the appellant started putting pressure on her to get their demands fulfilled through her father, who was scheduled to visit her that day. On 13.03.2003, mother-inlaw along with sister-in-law of the appellant caught hold of her hands and brother-in-law made her to consume a toilet cleaner i.e. harpic to her stating that if she dies, people will presume the same to be a case of suicide. Her husband was a mute spectator to said incident. When harpic was administered to her, she got fainted and was taken to hospital. When she regained consciousness in the hospital, her husband and brother-in-law threatened her of dire consequences, if she dared to disclose their names before Sub Divisional Magistrate, to whom she was to give her statement. Thereafter, the appellant lodged a first information report against her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Lastly, a prayer was made that since the appellant-wife apprehended threat to her life from the respondent-husband, therefore, a decree of divorce be granted in her favour.
(3.) The respondent contested the petition by filing written statement, wherein he admitted the fact of his marriage with the appellant on 16.11.2002 at Dehradun. It was pleaded, interalia, in the written statement that the allegations levelled against the family members of the respondent in FIR were false. It was also averred that in fact, it was the petitioner, who deserted the respondent. Cruelty with the petitioner was also denied.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.