SINGH, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the appeal No. 768/2005 is to the judgment and decree dated 18. 1. 2005 passed by Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, in Case No. 260/2003, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-wife (hereinafter referred to as the wife) was allowed and a decree of divorce was passed dissolving the marriage between the parties while the application of the respondent wife for permanent alimony was disallowed.
(2.) CHALLENGE in the another appeal No. 755/2005, filed by the wife Smt. Nidhi Jain is also to the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 18. 1. 05 passed by Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, whereby her application for permanent alimony was disallowed though her petition for decree of divorce was decreed. Both the appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 18. 1. 2005, passed by Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur, as stated above, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order. Briefly stated the facts common to these appeals are that wife had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short `the Act') on 9. 1. 2003, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty with the averments that marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites on 3. 12. 1995 at Jaipur and a daughter namely Peehu was born out of the wedlock on 13. 4. 1997. It was further averred that dowry was given as per the capacity of her parents but a demand of more dowry was raised by the husband and his parents after the marriage. The petitioner-wife cited mainly three incidents of cruelty caused to her as a ground in support of her petition. The first incident pertained to the month of March 1996 when she was beaten by the husband and thereafter the husband offered apology by writing a letter. Thereafter on 25. 11. 1996, when the petitioner was pregnant, she was turned out of the house and the third incident pertained to 27. 6. 1999, when she was tried to put to death by throttling and as such she was forced to come to the house of her father at Jaipur, though, she was not allowed to take her clothes and ornaments. Thereafter, the petitioner-wife had to lodge a report at Mahila Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, which was registered at No. 63/99 on 5. 7. 99 under Sections 498a, 406, 384 of the Indian Penal Code and the said criminal case was stated to be still pending in the Court. Finally, it was averred that relationship between the parties had broken down and the wife apprehended danger to her life and under these circumstances she was compelled to file the petition for decree of divorce. In reply to the petition, the husband denied all the allegations and averred that both of them were studying together in M. Sc. (Chemistry) in the year 1991-93 and their love affairs culminated in marriage with the consent of their family members and no dowry was given and as such there was no question of demanding dowry from the wife. It was further averred that the parents of the wife are residing all alone at Jaipur as their son was abroad and thus the wife wanted to live with her parents. The wife was advised not to insist the husband to shift Jaipur and that the husband was not willing to snap the matrimonial ties. It was further averred that the wife shifted from Alwar, where she used to work in Alwar Engineering College to Arya Engineering College, Kukas, Jaipur and was drawing salary of Rs. 13,000/- p. m. and therefore, she wanted to get rid of the marriage. Therefore, the petition of the wife for dissolution of marriage was sought to be dismissed. In rejoinder, the wife controverted all the allegations made by the husband and alleged that the husband is greedy and married with her so as to extract money which she could earn from her job and he had no love and affection for daughter born out of their wedlock.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed:- (1) Whether the husband treated the wife with cruelty? (2) Relief? Both the parties led their evidence on the aforesaid issues. The wife examined herself as A. W. 1, and she also examined (PW. 2) Dr. R. G. Agarwal, (PW. 3) Dr. Ram Kumar, (PW. 4), Rajesh Kumar Goyal and (PW. 5) Ghanshyam Singhal in support of her case. The husband examined himself as D. W. 1 while he examined (D. W. 2) Ghanshyam Yadav (D. W. 3) Praveen Kumar, (DW. 4) Suresh Chand Jain, (D. W. 5) Ramavtar Agarwal, (D. W. 6) Anoop Choudhary, (D. W. 7) Rajendra Kumar Jain, (D. W. 8) Todarmal Jain and (D. W. 9) Brijendra Kumar Jain in support of his case. Having discussed the evidence led by both the parties in detail, the trial Judge decreed the petition filed by the wife for dissolution of marriage as stated above. ;