- (1.) These two appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 are directed against judgment and decree dated 5.3.10 of Family Court, Jodhpur, whereby the petition preferred by the respondent-wife for dissolution of marriage under the provisions of Section 2(viii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 (for short "the Act of 1939") has been allowed and the petition preferred by the Appellant-husband for restitution of conjugal rights (darkhawast dakhal-i-zoziat) stands dismissed. Accordingly, the marriage between the parties stands dissolved by a decree of divorce. The cross objections have been filed by the cross objector-wife in Appeal No. 376/10 aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Family Court on issue No. I as also against the denial of decree for 'Mahr' agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage.
(2.) The appellant and respondent entered into marriage on 26.12.97, at jodhpur by performing rites and ceremony in accordance with the custom prevalent in the Muslim community. At the time of marriage, the appellant agreed to pay 'Mahr' to the respondent a sum of Rs. 21,000/- in cash and 21 gold asharfees, by way of 'Nikahnama' reduced in writing. Out of the wedlock, a son was born on 15.5.99.
(3.) The respondent preferred an application for dissolution of marriage under Section 2(viii) of the Act of 1939 stating that after the marriage, she came to know that her husband, the appellant herein, is a man of bad character. He was found keeping illicit relations with order girls. That apart, he attempted to force the respondent to lead an immoral life. It was alleged that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as dowry from the respondent's father and no protest being raised, she was beaten up. It was further alleged that the parents of the appellant threatened that if an amount of Rs. 10 lacs is not paid, they will solemnize second marriage of their son, the appellant herein. A few specific incidents of cruelty were set out in the petition which may be summarised thus: In the month of August, 1998 under a well planned conspiracy, the respondent was taken to a hotel in Delhi saying that the appellant intents to start a new business and therefore, the party entering into joint venture is to be consulted and the business project is to be prepared. The respondent was informed that the person with whom the new business is to be started is coming accompanied by his wife. The said person accompanied by his wife joined the appellant and the respondent in the evening and stayed in the same hotel. Under a planned conspiracy, the respondent was made to consume some thing mixed in the cold drink, as a result thereof, she became unconscious. When she woke up in the morning, she came to know that her husband and the said companion of her husband had sexual intercourse with her in the night. On the complaint being made, no heed was paid by the husband rather, he said that the wife of his companion had made sexual intercourse with him consciously and therefore, if his companion has made sexual intercourse with the respondent then there is nothing objectionable in it and that exchange of the wives is a progressive trend. The respondent was informed that a video film of the incident has also been prepared and if the respondent makes disclosure of the incident occurred, the said video film prepared shall be made public. It was further alleged that when the incident was narrated by the respondent to her mother-in-law, she supporting the appellant, said that if for welfare of the husband, the wife enters into sexual intercourse with somebody else then there is nothing wrong in it. The appellant and the respondent shifted from Ajmer to Jaipur and thereafter, there was no check on appellant of the parents and consequently, he openly indulged in bad habits which includes taking liquor, entering into home sexual relations and sexual intercourse with other girls. The appellant also created an email ID namely, Vishal69A hotmail.com with an intention to indulge in nefarious activities. The respondent was compelled to talk oh telephone and chat on internet with unknown persons. The appellant also compelled the respondent to earn the money by prostitution and on refusal, she was beaten up. The appellant accompanied by a girl 'N' came to the house in the night and stated that she will be preparing the project on computer. On the next day morning, the respondent saw the appellant and the said girl sleeping together in the naked position. The said girl apprised the respondent that she had illicit relations with the appellant who is in possession of her photographs in compromising position and therefore, on the threat, he calls her as and when he desires and compels her to enter into sexual intercourse. Looking at the nefarious activities in which the appellant was involved, the respondent insisted that either the appellant should shift to Ajmer else she will leave his company and go to Jodhpur alongwith the child. However, annoyed by the insistence if the respondent, the appellant snatched the child from the respondent and confined him in a room and threatened the respondent that if she goes to Jodhpur, he will kill the child and commit suicide. On 20.10.02, at about 2 a.m. in the night, the appellant insisted the respondent to talk with an unknown person and to tell him that she is ready to spend a night with him. On refusal of the respondent, she was beaten up. Hearing the cries, child woke up, who was also given beating. The respondent telephonically informed her parents and requested them to come to Jaipur so that she may go to Jodhpur, however, when this fact came to the knowledge of the appellant, he started quarreling with the respondent and again threatened that if she calls her parents, he will kill the child and commit suicide. The respondent informed her father on telephone not to come to Jaipur and accordingly, the respondent's father got his railway reservation cancelled but sent the respondent's brother to Jaipur. Seeking the respondent's brother, the appellant got angry, started abusing, attempted to beat the respondent and thrown her belongings out of the house. He took away the child in a room, bolted the door from inside and threatened to kill him and commit suicide. Two three days after the said incident, the appellant and respondent accompanied by their son came to Ajmer. On 26.10.02, at about 6.30 p.m. the appellant came with a foreigner and said that he has brought a client with whom she is required to spend a night. Having come to know about the bad intention of the appellant, the respondent alongwith the child went to her room and closed the door from inside. When the appellant was attempting to break open the door, the respondent informed her father telephonically regarding the immoral act of the appellant. While she was still talking with her father on mobile phone, the appellant broke open the door, entered the room and started beating the respondent. Hearing the cries, the neighbours came to their house, in the meanwhile, the foreigner friend of the appellant fled away. The incident was reported by the respondent's father from Jodhpur to the Police Control Room and thus, the police personnel from the concerned Police Station, Ajmer reached at the site. The neighbours took the responsibility to protect the respondent till her parents reach Ajmer to take away her to Jodhpur. The respondent's parents reached Ajmer at about 10.30 p.m. The respondent left the company of the appellant and came to Jodhpur accompanied by her son on 26.10.02 itself and since then, she is residing with her parents at Jodhpur.;