SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE VEDAS suggest division of human life into four stages viz. Brahamacharya, Grihastha, Vaanprastha and Sanyaasa, commonly known as four Aashramas. In the Brahamacharya Aashrama one passes through the life of studenthood, in the Grihastha Aashrama one passes through the life of house-holder, in the Vaanprastha one retires from worldly pursuits, and in the Sanyaasa Aashrama one renounces all worldly attachments. THE Grihastha Aashrama begins with marriage. Here the married couple face the hard realities of life. In the stability of families depends the stability of nation. THE institution of marriage was established with the purpose of achieving stability in our social life. Marriage is not just a social contract. It is much more than that. As a family is the nucleus of a nation, it has to be protected with great care and all costs. THE facts of this case however reveal that the young couple did not rise cheerfully to the occasion and failed to recognise their responsibility in the marital home.
(2.) IN all the three appeals husband (Sanjay) is the appellant and wife (Aradhna) is the respondent. They got married according to Hindu rites on December 25, 1994. Somehow their marital relations became strained and Sanjay had to file a petition in the Family Court No. 2 Jaipur under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short `the Act') seeking divorce from Aradhna on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. IN the year 2000 while the said petition was pending, Aradhana filed another petition under section 9 of the Act claiming restitution of conjugal rights. Both the petitions were decided by the learned Family Court conjointly vide decree and judgment dated February 26, 2002 granting relief to Aradhana. Being aggrieved by the findings, appeals bearing Nos. 584/2002 and 581/2002 have been filed by Sanjay. The petition moved by Aradhana under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act claiming maintenance from Sanjay was however decreed on August 26, 2003. This decree has been assailed by Sanjay in appeal No. 2353/2003. Since the questions of law and fact involve in these appeals are identical, we proceed to decide them by a common judgment. The averments made by Sanjay in the petition under section 13 of the Act are as under:- (i) Aradhana had an affair with one Toni, who was Devar (Brother in law) of her sister. On January 10, 1995 she insisted to meet Toni and when Sanjay did not allow her to do so she rebuked Sanjay and caused him mental agony. (ii) On January 15, 1995 Aradhana became angry from Sanjay and left for her parental house. (iii) On January 19, 1995 Aradhana came back to Sanjay's house and quarreled with him. She told him that she wanted to marry with Toni but she was forced by her family members to marry with Sanjay. (iv) Aradhana used to quarrel with her handicapped mother- inlaw. (v) On January 21, 1995 Aradhana finally declared that she would not reside with Sanjay and left his house along with her brother with all her house hold goods and jewelery etc. She also took with her golden chain and ring of her mother-in-law. (vi) On January 17, 1996 Aradhana informed Sanjay that if she was paid a sum of Rs. 30]000/- as lump sum maintenance allowance, she would not claim maintenance in future. Sanjay accordingly on January 18, 1996 issued a cheque of Rs. 15]000/- and paid in cash Rs. 15]000/- to Aradhana. (vii) On June 20, 1996 when Sanjay suffered from paralysis, Aradhana was informed about that, but she did not come to attend Sanjay. (viii) Aradhana deserted Sanjay without any reason for the past two years and caused mental cruelty to him. Aradhana submitted reply to the petition denying all the allegations. She pleaded that in fact it was Sanjay who deserted her and left her on January 21, 1995 to the house of her Mama. She did not bring any house hold goods and jewelery with her. She never demanded sum of Rs. 30]000/- from Sanjay. On the contrary Sanjay purchased stamp paper in her name and on blank stamp paper got her signatures. She was never informed about the paralytic attack on Sanjay in time. It was on January 19, 1997 that she was informed about the paralytic attack on Sanjay. She immediately rushed to the house of Sanjay where she found Sanjay quite normal. On January 25, 1995 Aradhana along with her mother went to the house of Sanjay, but his mother declined to keep her in the house. In the year 1995, on the occasion of Karwa-chauth she again went to the house of Sanjay, but Sanjay did not permit her to live with him. On April 14, 1995 her mother and Mausi went to house of Sanjay where her Nanad and Nandoi were present. As a token of love and affection, her mother handed out them sweets and a sum of Rs. 251/ -. Sanjay did not like this gesture and returned the sweets and money to the brother of Aradhana at his shop. On March 30, 1996 and April,1996 Sanjay denied for the visit of Aradhana and assured to have talked by telephone. Aradhana expressed her desire to live with Sanjay and prayed for dismissal of the petition. In the petition under section 9 of the Act Aradhana prayed to restore her conjugal rights. Opposing the prayer Sanjay pleaded that she was not entitled to the decree for conjugal rights. In the petition filed by Aradhana under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act she pleaded that in the petition under section 13 of the Act filed by Sanjay a sum of Rs. 800/- per month as interim maintenance was awarded to her. Since she has no source of income she was entitled to be maintained by Sanjay who was employed in Indian Bank for the past 12-13 years and his monthly income was Rs. 12]000/- to 15]000/ -. She claimed Rs. 5]000/- per month as maintenance allowance.
(3.) SANJAY filed reply to petition stating therein that he was regularly paying the maintenance as awarded by the court. He further stated that Aradhana was serving as Teacher in a private school and earning Rs. 2000/- per month. He further pleaded that he was simply a clerk and earning small amount not sufficient to maintain himself. He also stated that Aradhana was receiving Rs. 1]500/- per month as maintenance allowance and he paid her lump sum maintenance allowance Rs. 30]000/-, therefore she was not entitled to maintenance allowance. Having heard the submissions, learned Family Court vide judgment dated August 26, 2003 enhanced the maintenance allowance from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3]000/- per month. Petitions filed under section 13 and 9 of the Act were consolidated and out of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:- (1) Whether the wife behaved cruelly with husband as per the facts stated in the petition? (2) Whether the wife deserted the husband for more than two years prior to filing the petition? (3) Relief? ;