- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2000 passed by Sri V. K. Jaiswal, III Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in Original Suit No. 351 of 1997 Smt. Vandita Gautam vs. Sri Vikas Pandey.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent filed Original Suit No. 351 of 1997 against the defendant-appellant u/s. 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (in brief Act) with the allegations that - The plaintiff-respondent was married on 21.6.1991 with the defendant-appellant at his residential house at Dehradun. Her family members spent an amount of Rs. 4, 50,000/- in the marriage and sufficient articles, gift and dowry was given at the time of the marriage, but the family members of the defendant-appellant were not happy with the amount spent in the marriage and further demanded a car in dowry. However, the plaintiff-respondent explained to the defendant-appellant and his family members regarding financial status of her family that they were not in a position to provide a car. When the demand of the defendant-appellant and his family members were not met, they threw the plaintiff-appellant out of their house and sent the plaintiff-respondent to her parental house at Meerut and at present she is living with her mother at Meerut. All the articles, clothes, ornaments etc. given by the family members of the plaintiff-appellant were kept by the defendant-appellant and his family members. In November, 1996 the plaintiff-respondent came to know that the defendant-appellant obtained an ex-parte decree from the court of Civil Judge, Dehradun and an application to restore the proceedings has already been moved by the plaintiff-respondent which is pending. The defendant-appellant has not taken care of the plaintiff-respondent since 27.6.1991 and has not given her any amount of maintenance and the plaintiff-respondent is living with her widowed mother. Though the plaintiff-respondent is a literate lady having no means to maintain herself, she is not doing any service and factually she is a burden on her parents. The defendant-appellant is a senior Geologist in Oil and Natural Gas Commission and at present he is posted in District- Shiv Sagar (Assam) and is getting Rs. 15000/- per month as salary and he can easily pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-to his wife to maintain herself. The plaintiff-respondent is also entitled to get the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month which the defendant-appellant is liable to pay. The plaintiff-appellant has also come to know that the defendant-appellant has performed second marriage with some lady named Kalpana. However, the plaintiff-respondent reserved her right to file a civil suit in this regard.
(3.) The defendant-appellant filed written statement and denied all the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that- The marriage between the defendant-appellant and plaintiff-respondent was solemnized on 21.6.1991 at Meerut according to Hindu rites and rituals. It was also admitted that after the marriage the plaintiff-respondent lived with him for certain period at Dehradun. However, it was denied that Rs. 4.5 lacs was spent in the marriage. It was also denied that the plaintiff-respondent was thrown out of the house by the defendant-appellant without any clothes and ornaments. In fact whatever ornaments were given in the marriage the same was taken away by the plaintiff-appellant. It was also denied that the defendant-appellant or his family member ever demanded any dowry or ill-treated the plaintiff-respondent. The real facts are that soon after the marriage the behaviour of the plaintiff-respondent with the defendant-appellant and his family members was not proper and she left the house of her own free will and is living with her mother at Meerut. The defendant-appellant filed a suit for divorce and the plaintiff-respondent after receipt of notice appeared before the court but later on deliberately absented herself and the court was compelled to pass a decree of divorce between the parties. The plaintiff-respondent did not file any appeal against the decree of divorce dated 26.11.1993. The allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff is living with her mother, she is not doing any job and is not having any means is wrong. In fact, the plaintiff-respondent is a highly educated lady with M. A. in English and B. Ed. and is at present also doing Ph. D. and she is a teacher earning at least Rs. 5000/- per month from tuition and the job of a teacher. It is not denied that the defendant-appellant is a Geologist in Oil and Natural Gas Commission. However, he gets only Rs. 10000/- as monthly pay and after the decree of divorce he has already married one Alpana and at present is living in Assam with his wife and one daughter. The demand of Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance is wholly excessive. In fact the behaviour of the plaintiff-respondent with the defendant-appellant soon after the marriage was very cruel and unnatural and because of this the defendant-appellant was compelled to file a suit for divorce which was decreed and the plaintiff-respondent preferred no appeal against the same and the suit is liable to be dismissed.;