- (1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.08.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No.37 of 2002 (Rajendra Kumar vs. Smt. Alka and others) under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the relief of divorce.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the opposite party no.1 the husband (the Opposite party) filed a suit against his wife ( the Appellant) for the relief of dissolution of marriage which was registered as Hindu Marriage Petition No.37 of 2002 with the allegations: That the marriage of the parties was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and customs on 14.02.1990 at Meerut; That after marriage the opposite party gave all love and affection to the appellant and provided all facilities to her according to his capacity, but she was not happy with the said marriage and from the very beginning she started making disturbance in the family and used abusive language against the respondent; That the behaviour of the appellant was cruel and several times she said that the marriage was solemnized without her wishes; That the opposite party and his family members tried their level best to settle the differences between the two and also asked the appellant to adjust herself in the family, but all in vain; That on 10.10.1991 the appellant left the house of the opposite party without any sufficient reason and even without informing the opposite party and his family members and since then she is living with her mother; That there was no issue from the said wedlock; That since then the opposite party several times went to the house of the appellant and requested her to come back to stay with him but she refused to come; That thereafter the opposite party was compelled to file a Divorce Petition No.123 of 1994 (Rajendra Kumar vs. Smt. Alka Rani) on the ground of cruelty which was dismissed in default; and That thereafter the opposite party filed another suit being Suit No. 447 of 1997 (Rajendra Kumar vs. Smt. Alka Rani) on the ground of cruelty which was also dismissed on 20.08.1998. After dismissal of both the petitions the appellant started having illicit relationship with one Ravindra, the opposite party was compelled to file another Petition No.351 of 2000 on the ground of adultery against the appellant, but due to threatening attitude of Sri Ravindra who was a person of criminal mind, the opposite party under compulsion withdrew the said suit on 06.02.2001; That after withdrawal of the said petition the appellant again started living in adultery with one Rajiv Kumar son of Sri Om Prakash, opposite party no.2 and after getting knowledge of the said adulterous relationship the opposite party went to the house of the appellant and saw the appellant and the opposite party no. 2 in compromising position and when he objected, they started abusing language against the opposite party; That thereafter on several occasions the opposite party had seen the appellant with opposite party no.2 at different public places like market, hotels, picture halls etc. and when the appellant refused to refrain herself from her adulterous act, the opposite party was compelled to file the aforesaid petition. The opposite party no.2 being a necessary part was also impleaded in the petition and the opposite party sought the following relief:- " That by a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner against the O. P. No.1, the marriage of the petitioner with the O.P. No.1 be dissolved."
(3.) The appellant Smt. Alka contested the said petition and stated that the marriage with the opposite party is admitted; That at the time of marriage sufficient dowry and house hold articles etc. were given by her father to the opposite party no.1 and his family. All the allegations of cruel behaviour or desertion by the appellant are false and fabricated. The appellant always wants to live the opposite party and even today she is willing to live with the opposite party, but his behaviour was not cordial and she was beaten by the opposite party on the ground of bringing insufficient dowry and it was the opposite party who took the appellant with him and left her at her parent's house. The opposite party initially filed one suit no. 123 of 1994 on the ground of cruelty in which the appellant filed an application us/. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the grant of maintenance and the court directed the opposite party to pay Rs.800/- per month to the appellant along with Rs.1200/- as expenses. When that amount was not paid to the appellant, the court dismissed the petition on that ground. Thereafter no restoration application was moved by the opposite party nor any appeal was filed against the said order. Thereafter another Suit No.447 of 1997 was filed by the opposite party on the ground of cruelty which was dismissed on 20.08.1998. The third petition being Case No.351 of 2000 was filed by the opposite party on the ground of adultery and in the said case it was shown that the appellant was living in adultery with one Ravindra in which the opposite party moved an application on 06.02.2001 for withdrawal of the suit, but the family court instead of granting permission of withdrawal, dismissed the suit. The present case is also a link in the chain of different petitions filed by the opposite party and as such this petition is barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. She stated that all the allegations of adultery are false and frivolous and have been made just to give colour to the petition.;