JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The appellant-wife Smt. Pushpa having remained unsuccessful in getting her marriage to Mukesh Kumar-husband dissolved before the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul has now filed the present appeal before this Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the present appeal shall be referred to as ‘wife” and “husband” respectively.
3. The case put up by the wife in her petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of her marriage with Mukesh Kumar-husband is that they were married on November 16, 1983 at Narnaul. On the aforesaid date her elder sister Rajbala was also married with Satbir, the elder brother of the husband. The marriage between Rajbala and Satbir was consummated immediately whereas the marriage between the present appellant i.e. Pushpa and the respondent-husband Mukesh Kumar had consummated after gauna ceremony which took place on January 19, 1995. After gauna ceremony, when she went to live with her husband at her matrimonial home, she was kept well for 3/4 days and, thereafter, her in-laws started raising demand of money. According to the wife, she was asked to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. It has also been stated that she was also beaten up by her in-laws. On May 12, 1998, her mother accompanied by her father, brother and other persons, went to her in-laws house and asked them not to harass her but still they reiterated their demand of more money. Her father refused to oblige the illegitimate demand of her in-laws. She was turned out of her matrimonial home and she came back to her parents home. She has stated that she was pregnant at that time. She gave birth to a male child on September 3, 1998 at Narnaul. A letter was written to her in-laws informing them about the birth of the child but no body, including her husband, ever came to visit her to see the child. On May 22, 1999, the husband accompanied by his father and elder brother visited her parents to enquire about the money demanded by them but her father refused to give money. The husband and his elder brother picked up a quarrel with her father and brother and a case was got registered. With these averments, a decree of divorce has been claimed by the wife on the ground of cruelty.
4. The husband appeared before the learned trial Court and filed a written statement contesting the pleas raised by the wife. All the material allegations made by the wife were denied. It was stated by him that he used to keep the wife with love and affection and there was no dispute between them. The stand taken by the husband in the written statement is that in the month of August, 1998 when the wife was having 8 months old pregnancy, she was taken to her parents house by her mother on the pretext that she would require care at the time of delivery. However, the husband claimed that even after the delivery, he or his parents were never informed about the birth of the child. It was only when he visited Narnaul to meet the wife, he came to know about the birth of the child and when he asked the wife to accompany him to her matrimonial home, her mother refused to send her with him and told that she would accompany him only if he was willing to live at Narnaul. This proposal was not acceptable to the husband and, therefore, a false case was got registered against him and his brother. The factum of any dowry having ever been demanded or mal-treatment was denied by the husband.
5. The parties led their respective evidence. The learned trial court after going through the evidence came to the conclusion that there were no grounds to prove the claim of the wife. Accordingly, the petition for divorce filed by her was dismissed. The wife has now approached this court through the present appeal.
6. I have heard Sh. Sanjay Mittal, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant-wife and Sh. Gunjan Mehta, the learned counsel for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case.
7. The appellant-wife has appeared as PW1 to support her own case. During her statement, she has admitted that her elder sister Smt. Rajbala was also married to the elder brother of the husband, namely, Satbir. PW2 Hazari Lal is the father of the appellant-wife. He has also supported the stand taken by his daughter. Although, he in his cross-examination has stated that the demand of money was also raised from his elder daughter Rajbala, but with the intervention of the Panchayat they were able to rehabilitate her, PW3 Bhagwan Dass is another witness who had accompanied the parents of the wife to her matrimonial home on May 12, 1998. He has categorically stated that he had accompanied the parents of the wife to the house of the husband to persuade them not to raise the demand of money but the husband and his family members refused to listen to them and demand Rs. 50,000/-.
8. On the other hand, the husband had appeared as RW2 and reiterated the pleas taken by him in the written statement. A reliance has also been placed upon two letters one is marked “A” which is alleged to be written by the wife to one Naresh Kumar and another letter Ex.R1 written by her to her parents. RW1 is Smt. Rajbala. The aforesaid Rajbala is the sister of the wife and as noticed above, is married to her elder brother of the husband, namely Satbir. In her statement Rajbala has denied the allegations of Pushpa, the present appellant that her in-laws demanded Rs. 50,000/-. She has also denied the factum of any harassment or pressurisation by her in-laws towards her sister. In fact it is because of the relationship between Rajbala with Smt. Pushpa that the learned trial Court was influenced to reject the plea raised by the appellant Pushpa.
9. It is submitted by Sh. Sanjay Mittal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the learned trial Court while considering the evidence led by the parties has totally ignored the fact that aforesaid Rajbala RW1 besides being the real sister of the appellant was also the elder daughter-in-law in the house of her in-laws being married to the elder brother of the husband of the appellant, namely, Sabtir. On that basis it is sub-milted by Sh. Sanjay Mittal that because of the aforesaid relationship the aforesaid witness could never dare to go against her own family members. According to Sh. Mittal this aspect of the matter has been over-looked by the learned trial Court.
10. On the other hand, Sh. Gunjan Mehta the learned counsel for the respondent-husband submits that in view of the testimony of Rajbala, who is the real sister of the appellant-wife, the plea raised by her with regard to maltreatment and cruelty was totally liable to be ignored.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and find merit in the above submission of learned counsel for the appellant. The evidence of Smt. Rajbala RW1 cannot be given any undue importance, merely because she is the sister of the present appellant Smt. Pushpa, because of the reason that she is married to Satbir who is admittedly the elder brother of Mukesh Kumar, the present respondent. While making the statement in the court, the aforesaid witness had more stakes in protecting her own marriage rather than supporting the case of her sister. I have also noticed another fact that although the marriages of both the sisters, namely, Rajbala as well as Pushpa (the present appellant) had been performed on November 16, 1983 but the gauna ceremony in the case of the present appellant had taken place on January 19, 1995 i.e. after the expiry of nearly 12 years. Aforesaid Smt. Rajbala had since settled in her in-laws house. On the other hand, when the present appellant went to live with her husband, after the gauna ceremony, she was asked to meet the illegitimate demand of dowry and was treated with cruelty. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW1, the wife herself, in this regard. She is duly supported by the statement of Hazari Lal, her father, who appeared as PW2. PW3 Bhagwan Dass who is an independent witness has also supported her statement. He has also stated that on May 12, 1988 when he went to effect the reconciliation to the house of husband Mukesh Kumar in the village, then at that stage also the in-laws of Pushpa demanded Rs. 50,000/-.
12. In view of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve the claim made by the wife and decline her the relief claimed by her.
Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and after setting aside the judgment and
decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, the petition under Section 13 of
the Hindu marriage Act filed by the appellant Smt. Pushpa is accepted and the marriage between the parties is hereby dissolved by passing a decree of divorce. There shall be no order as to costs.