If the respondent was abused by his wife or mother on June 13, 2004 or January 5, 2006, he should have presented the best evidence available in his August 6, 2010 response, namely his friends or relatives who allegedly accompanied him on those days, given that the Appellant denied such incidents. “So if you look at the documents that were recorded, it`s clear that the woman had enough reasons to live apart. A man cannot leave his wife like that. Nor can he make an illegal claim. With the Covid courts not operating at full capacity, she should now ask him to take her home without any illegal claims. 3. According to the Supreme Court, a woman has full property rights over all her streedhan, gifts and money given to her before and after marriage. Streedhan`s refusal to the wife made the husband and in-laws liable to prosecution. On the other hand, in her affidavit Ex.RW1/A, the complainant had set out the circumstances in order to show how she had been tortured by her husband in the marital home; why she had left the marital home; The apathy her husband shows towards her and her child by not even meeting the child. Rather, the Appellant proved that she was a victim of domestic violence because she was always abused and ridiculed by her husband or the Respondent. The respondent admitted that he had accused his wife of killing his son and that his conduct had destroyed his house on 06.
September 2003 and not returning until the complainant was taken from her parents, and the fact that he filed for divorce within two days for the wrong reason, show the respect he had for his wife and the way he treated her. It is acknowledged that the FIR is still pending against him under section 498A/406 of the Criminal Code and we note the efforts made by the complainant to obtain maintenance for herself and her daughter by making requests from time to time. The defendant would have had to prove his allegations with positive evidence if he had intended to obtain a judgment for cruelty and desertion and could not have relied on the proposals that had not been submitted to him. Admittedly, after his cross-examination as PW1, the respondent visited his wife a few days after the first delivery and instead mocked the fact that she had killed the child and thus committed a cruel act. In addition, the allegations made by the Appellant in her affidavit Ex.RW1/A that she was beaten, harassed, etc. were not contested. In short, the facts are that the defendant/husband had filed an application for divorce HMA No. 444/2009 (although originally filed with the Faridabad Courts and in accordance with the Supreme Court Order of 26 February 2010, the petition was transferred to the Delhi Courts) against his wife claiming that his life had been miserable by his wife, she is quarrelsome; always insisting on separating from their in-laws; did not provide him with food in time and made his life hell. 14. In February 2002, the Appellant gave birth to a child, which unfortunately expired on February 16, 2002, and held the Respondent responsible for her death and claimed ₹5,000 in compensation; She left the marital home without her consent under the pretext of attending computer classes; She finally left the marital home with her parents on 6 September 2003 in her absence, took all her dowry items and deposited DD No. 25A at Police Station No. 3, NIT Faridabad, Haryana, on 11 and 12 September 2003.
The husband/respondent further stated that a daughter, Tina, was born on April 3, 2004 and that all of her child`s birth expenses were covered by him, and that he had since gone to the Appellant`s home and asked her to return to the matrimonial home, but to no avail. The spouse/respondent also stated that 08. In September 2003 he filed an application for divorce no. 24/2013 with the Faridabad courts, but as she had promised to join him, he withdrew his application on 19 January 2004, but the applicant did not join his company either. On 13 June 2004, he summoned a Biradari Panchyat, but the complainant did not accept his counsel and insulted him in the presence of the Panchyate members and instead filed FIR No. 477/2005 pursuant to section 498A/406 of the Penal Code at the Dabri Police Station in Delhi. The accused further alleged that, on the advice of the competent court, he had attempted to settle the case and had gone to his parents` home on 5 January 2006 to resume it, but that he had been ill-treated and kicked, and that he had reported the case to SHO, Dabri, Delhi. The parties were married on July 23. April 2000 in New Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies, but unfortunately could not get along well, the applicant having left the marital home on 6 September 2003 to live with her parents. Her departure from the marital home on 6 September 2003 was considered by the court to be an act of desertion and cruelty, and the husband/defendant was therefore granted a divorce decree dated 11 November 2013 by the judge of the Dwarka Family Court, New Delhi.
The wife of that matrimonial court brought an action No 82/2014 against that decree and challenged the contested judgment. In a case of cruelty where the husband clearly sings that he will not divorce his wife, she can always divorce, if so, then how. The Supreme Court also noted that during his cross-examination, the husband admitted that he had accused his wife of killing their son, who died a few hours after his birth, and stated that such conduct constituted cruelty.