SAROJNEI SAKSENA, J. - (1.) APPELLANT wife has filed this appeal under Section ,28 of the Hindu Marriage Act (in short the 'act' ).
(2.) IN a nut-shell the facts of the case are that appellant's marriage was fixed with Suresh Chander son of Diwan Chand (PW-6 ). Three days before the date of marriage, negotiation broke down. Then immediately she was engaged with the respondent and they were joined in marital tie on 27. 4. 1982 at Bhiwani. Respondent-husband lives in Village Kayla. Appellant and respondent lived at Village Kayla for a very short while and consummated the marriage. No. issue was born out of this wedlock. Respondent-petitioner husband's contention in the lower Court was that appellant's settled marriage with Suresh Chand broke down on account of dowry. On being approached, he and his father willingly agreed to perform his marriage with the appellant. On 27. 4. 1982 this marriage took place. They never demanded any dowry. Appellant-wife lived with him on 3 occasions only-for one day after marriage, for few days at another occasion and for one month lastly. In January, 1986 she left her matrimonial home and thereafter never resumed co-habitation with him. He persuaded her to come back, took Panchayats also, but she declined. She is a born resident of Bhiwani. As she was not having amenities of city life in village Kayla, she could not adjust herself in the village life and thus left the matrimonial home for ever. Her mother lodged a complaint against him whereby he and his relations were summoned by the Police. They suffered humiliation, but finally her mother compromised the matter. She also sent a complaint in his office with a view to disgrace him in his school also, where he is a Teacher. She also filed a complaint under Sections 493-A and 506 IPC against him and his family members, which is still pending. In that case also, they were summoned in the Cort and are still facing humiliation. When she was living with him, her behaviour was cruel towards him and his family members. Even her correct age was not given at the time of marriage. Thus she treated him with cruelty and has deserted him. On both these counts, he claimed divorce under Section 13 of the Act.
(3.) THE appellant-wife contested the petition and denied all the allegations of cruelty and desertion. Conversly her plea is that immediately after the marriage, her husband and his relations started demanding dowry. She was always taunted and tortured for not bringing sufficient dowry. She denied that her mother and later on she has falsely implicated her husband and members of her in-laws' family humiliate them. As she was harassed by them for bringing less dowry and they were continuously demanding more dowry and ultimately she was turned out of the matrimonial home in her wearing apparel, under these compelling circumstances, she filed that complaint. She also alleged that on 24. 8. 1988 her husband came to her parental home and at the point of knife asked her to agree for divorce. She was also forced to sign blank papers, but she declined. Her father died on account of this sorry state of affairs that she was not rehabilitated by the respondent. Her jewellery and valuables were kept by her in- laws. She and her brothers were beaten by the respondent-husband. Her relations persuaded the respondent to rehabilitate her, but he always declined. Once on their persuasion, he allowed her to live with him, but within 15 days again he turned her out after beating her.;