- (1.) Without pleading whether decree of divorce was being sought on ground of cruelty and/or desertion, the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pleading that marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu custom on 6.4.2006. That two sisters of the appellant were already married. Appellant's father had retired from service. Appellant's mother was suffering from various ailments. That from the very first night of the marriage the respondent did not accord status of a husband to the appellant and refused to have physical relationship with him. That the house of the maternal grandparents of the respondent was adjoining the house of the appellant and this was the reason why the appellant and the respondent came to know each other. The appellant fell in love with the respondent. Matrimonial relationship was the end result. That the appellant did not desire any dowry and did not take any dowry. Next day when he went to the house of his in-laws to seek their blessings his in-laws said that they would bless him only after he takes the dowry articles. Therefore he took the dowry articles. Same night there was a religious function in his house. To insult him the respondent threatened to live with her father and go to the parental house. He begged of them to stay back. But next day morning respondent left with her brother to parental house. Before she left he begged off her not to go. She abused him and gave him a slap and left with her brother. That after taking an examination the appellant went to the house of his inlaws. His father-in-law scolded him and respondent's brother said that he would not send his sister with him. That after the respondent returned to her matrimonial house she started troubling his parents and was disrespectful towards them. On the seventh day of the marriage when the appellant asked the respondent for the key of the almirah so that he could take out his clothes from the almirah the respondent threw the key at his face. That whenever respondent used to come to her matrimonial house she used to fight and foul the atmosphere in the house. On 8.9.2006 she accused him of being impotent and left the matrimonial house. On 20.1.2007 and 3.11.2007 he sent registered notices to the respondent requesting her to take back dowry articles.
(2.) To a reader of the petition, at first blush it strikes that the pleadings are diffused and inchoate. In paragraph 4 it is pleaded that the appellant and the respondent had met each other because respondent's maternal grand-parents house was adjoining the house of the appellant and they fell in love with each other. But in the preceding paragraph 3 it is stated that on the first night of the wedding respondent refused to have physical relationship with the appellant. In paragraph 6 it is pleaded that the next day of the marriage when the appellant and the respondent went to respondent's house to seek blessings, his in-laws said that they would bless him only after he accepts the dowry articles and thus he was compelled to receive the same. Meaning thereby, so much concerned were the parents of the respondent that not taking dowry by the appellant had hurt them and lest they be hurt the appellant took the dowry articles. But in the next paragraph i.e. paragraph 7 it it stated that at the religious function in the appellant's house at night the respondent and her father created a scene. In paragraph 8, as noted above, general averments without particulars have been made to the effect that after taking the examination when appellant returned to his house and went to the house of his in-laws, his father-in-law scolded him. When did the appellant leave his house to take some examination? None has been stated. When he returned? None has been stated.
(3.) In our opinion so general and vague are the pleadings in the petition that no trial ought to have been conducted. The petition should have been thrown out as not disclosing any cause of action.;