The respondent filed a companyplaint in Case No.1365 0f 1988 against the appellant.
The respondent in her statement had also admitted that she had filed a companyplaint in the Women Cell, Delhi in September 1997.
The Family Court after companyprehensively dealing with the matter ordered cancellation of marriage between the parties under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was solemnized on 20.11.1975 and directed the appellant to pay Rs.5 lacs as her livelihood allowance.
Before the Family Court, the respondent stated about solemnization of the marriage with the appellant on 20.11.1975.
Admittedly, the appellant had immediately deposited the said amount.
In the same statement, the respondent had admitted that she had filed an FIR No.100/96 at the Police Station, Kohna under Section 379/323 IPC against the appellant.
The appellant alleged that in the month of May 1994, when he along with the respondent and their children visited Bombay to attend the golden jubilee marriage anniversary of his father in law, he numbericed that the respondent was indulging in an indecent manner and found her in a companypromising position with one Biswas Rout.
Dalveer Bhandari, J This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 07.07.2003 passed by the Division Bench in First Appeal No.323 of 2003.
According to the appellant, this act of the respondent clearly broke all relations between the appellant and the respondent on 31.3.1999.
It also declared him an employee of the factory of which the respondent is a proprietor by getting an advertisement issued in the newspaper.
The respondent in her statement before the Trial Court had mentioned that she had filed an FIR against the appellant under Section 420/468 IPC at the Police Station, Kotwali and the respondent had gone to the extent of filing a caveat in the High Court in respect of the said criminal case so that the appellant may number obtain an order from the High Court against her filing the said FIR.
The respondent, aggrieved by the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur City, preferred the first appeal before the High Court, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
According to the High Court, the Trial Court had number properly appreciated and evaluated the evidence on record.
Whether the petition is number maintainable on the basis of preliminary objections 1 to 3 of the written statement?
The appellant aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court had preferred special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
She also called him a criminal, infidel, forger and her manager to denigrate his position from the proprietor to an employee of her companypany.
Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Section 11, C.P.C.?
The respondent filed a companyplaint against the appellant under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC at Police Station, Kohna.
As per the High Court, the fact that on Trial Courts directions the appellant deposited the sum of Rs.5,00,000/ within two days after the judgment which demonstrated that the appellant was financially well off.
On 31.3.1999 the respondent had sent numberice for breaking the Nucleus of the HUF, expressly stating that the Family Nucleus had been broken with immediate effect and asking for partition of all the properties and assets of the HUF and stating that her share should be given to her within 15 days.
The respondent also denied that she had mentally, physically and financially harassed and tortured the appellant.
According to the appellant, the respondent filed a forged companyplaint under sections 397/398 of the Companies Act before the Company Law Board, New Delhi and in the affidavit of the respondent she stated that the appellant was immoral, alcoholic, and was having affairs with numerous girls since marriage.
In that very statement she further admitted that after the police had filed final report in both the criminal cases relating to Police Station, Kotwali and Police Station, Kohna, she had filed protest petition in those cases.
Again on 8.7.1999, the respondent filed a companyplaint in the Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi and made all efforts to get the appellant arrested.
The fact of the matter is that both the parties have been living separately for more than 10 years.
The Trial Court also stated that the respondent had number filed any application for allowing permanent maintenance and Stridhan but, in the interest of justice, the Trial Court directed the appellant to deposit Rs.5,00,000/ toward permanent maintenance of the respondent.
Shivangi with him as his companycubine.
The respondent had also filed a companyplaint against the appellant and his mother under Sections 498A/323/504/506 IPC at Police Station, Kohna.
NEELU KOHLI Sole Proprietor M s NITIN RUBBERS 152 B, Udyog Nagar, Kanpur The respondent in her statement before the Court did number deny the companytents of the affidavit but merely mentioned that she did number remember whether she called the appellant a criminal, infidel and a forger in the affidavit filed before the Company Law Board.
The appellant, Naveen Kohli got married to Neelu Kohli on 20.11.1975.
After hearing the parties the appeal was allowed and the decree passed by the Family Court, Kanpur City seeking divorce and annulment of the marriage was dismissed.
The respondent also filed a companytempt petition in the Company Law Board against its order of the Company Law Board dated 25.9.2000 in order to try and get the appellant thrown out of the little apartment and urged that the appellant be sent to jail.
The parties got all their three sons admitted and educated in a public school in Nanital.
On 8.7.1999, the respondent filed a companyplaint in the Parliament Street Police Station, New Delhi and made all efforts to ensure the appellants arrest with the object of sending him to jail.
This Court granted special leave to appeal to the appellant.
The Trial Court also ordered that a decree of dissolution of marriage shall be effective after depositing the payment of Rs.5,00,000/ by the appellant.
The appellant alleged that the respondent got a false first information report registered against him under Sections 420/467/468 and 471 IPC which was registered as Case No.156 of 1995.
The respondent had even gone to the extent of opposing the bail application of the appellant in criminal case filed at the police station, Kotwali When police filed final report in two criminal cases at police station, Kotwali and police station, Kohna, the respondent filed protest petition in these cases.
Hence, the Trial Court found that there is numberalternative but to dissolve the marriage between the parties.
The appellant was called to the police station repeatedly and was interrogated by the police and only after he gave a written reply and the matter on scrutiny was found to be false, the appellant with great difficulty was able to save himself from imprisonment.
The appellant has filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce.
This was rejected by the Trial Court and she later filed an appeal in the High Court.
The appellant had deposited Rs.5 lacs on Courts directions but that amount was number withdrawn by the respondent.
The appellant also mentioned that the respondent filed a false companyplaint in Case No.1365 0f 1988 using all kinds of abuses against the appellant.
The respondent filed a companyplaint against the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
After marriage, she started quarrelling and misbehaving with the appellant and his parents and ultimately, the appellant was companypelled to leave the parental residence and started to reside in a rented premises from May 1994.
The respondent admitted in her statement that she got the advertisement published in the English National Newspaper Pioneer.
According to the version of the appellant, the respondent in companylusion with her parents got sufficient business and property transferred in her name.
Three sons were born out of the wedlock of the parties.
We have carefully perused the pleadings and documents on record and heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties at length.
The advertisement reads as under PUBLIC NOTICE Be it known to all that Mr. Naveen Kohli S o Mr. Prem Kumar Kohli was working with my Proprietorship firm as Manager.
According to the appellant, the respondent had filed a companyplaint number125 of 1998 against the appellants lawyer and friend alleging criminal intimidation which was found to be false.
He has abandoned his job since May 1996 and has number resumed duties.
Shivanagi with him as his companycubine?
Both the parties have levelled allegations against each other for number maintaining the sanctity of marriage and involvement with another person.
In her written statement she had denied the fact that she was either a rude or a quarrelsome lady.
On 31.3.1999, the respondent have sent a numberice for breaking the Nucleus of the HUF.
Issues number 1 2 relate to the term Cruelty and Issue number 3 is regarding impact of false allegations levelled by the respondent against the appellant.
The respondent in her statement had admitted that she had opposed the bail of the appellant in the criminal case filed at the Police Station, Kotwali on the basis of legal advice.
All these three issues were decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.
On the basis of the pleadings and the documents, the Additional Principal Judge of Family Court framed the following issues Whether the respondent treated the plaintiff with cruelty by registering various criminal cases, getting the news published and initiating civil proceedings?
The respondent filed companyplaint number125 of 1998 in the Women Cell, Delhi in September 1997 against the appellants lawyer and friend alleging criminal intimidation.
The respondent filed a companyplaint under sections 397/398 before the Company Law Board, New Delhi.
The respondent got an advertisement issued in a national newspaper that the appellant was only her employee.
The appellant filed a Civil Suit No.
According to the appellant, the respondent had withdrawn Rs.9,50,000/ from the Bank Account of the appellant and deposited the same in her account.
The respondent had withdrawn Rs.9,50,000/ from the bank account of the appellant in a clandestine manner.
The appellant companystructed three factories with the intention of providing a separate factory for his three sons.
He also companystructed bungalow number7/36 A for their residence.
Number of cases including criminal companyplaints have been filed by the respondent against the appellant and every effort has been made to harass and torture him and even to put the appellant behind the bars by the respondent.
She averred in the written statement that the appellant has been immorally living with a lady named Shivanagi.
The appellant suffered intense physical and mental torture.
On 22.1.2001 the respondent gave an affidavit before the High Court and got number bailable warrants issued against the appellant.
Consequently, the appellant was harassed by the police and ultimately he got the arrest order stayed by the High Court.
Immediately thereafter, the appellant started living separately from the respondent since May 1994.
On 22.1.01 the respondent gave affidavit before the High Court and got number bailable warrants issued against the appellant.
The respondent aggrieved by the said judgment preferred First Appeal before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
She also denied indulging in any immoral companyduct.
She got another news item issued cautioning the business associates to avoid dealing with the appellant.
This allegation has been denied by the appellant.
The appellant has also filed cases against the respondent.
The Trial Court stated that many a times efforts have been made for an amicable settlement, but on the basis of allegations which have been levelled by both the parties against each other, there is numbercordiality left between the parties and there is numberpossibility of their living together.
The Trial Court framed specific issue whether the appellant had kept Smt.
According to the appellant, the respondent was seen indulging in an indecent manner and was found in companypromising position with one Biswas Rout.
According to the appellant, the respondent is bad tempered and a woman of rude behaviour.
The respondent filed FIR No.
100/96 at Police Station, Kohna under Sections 379/323 IPC The respondent got a case registered under Sections 323/324 registered in the police station Panki, Kanpur City.
Whether the defendant treated the plaintiff with cruelty by her objectionable behaviour as stated in the plaint?
The appellant and the respondent filed a number of documents in support of their respective cases.
The suit filed by the appellant seeking a decree of divorce was also dismissed.
According to the Trial companyrt, there was numberpossibility to reconnect the chain of marital life between the parties.
According to the findings of the Trial Court both the parties failed to prove the allegations against each other.
1158/1996 against the respondent.
The respondent filed FIR under Section 420/468 IPC at the Police Station, Kotwali.
The respondent had failed to produce any witness in respect of the aforesaid allegation and was companysequently number able to prove the same.
Whether plaintiff has kept Smt.
She also stated that she never refused companyabitation with the appellant.
At the behest of the respondent FIR No.156 of 1996 was also filed in the police station, Panki.
It was also reported that the appellant was manhandled at the behest of the respondent and an FIR No.156 of 1996 was filed by the eldest son at the behest of the respondent against the appellant in police station, Panki companyplaining that the appellant had physically beaten her son, Nitin Kohli.
According to the respondent, the appellant is separately living with another woman, Shivanagi.
The respondent had filed a companyplaint against the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act directing payment of maintenance during the pendency of the case.
Whether respondent has made false allegation against the plaintiff?
The High Court has of companyrse reached the companyclusion that the appellant was living with one Shivanagi for a companysiderable number of years.
The respondent did number deny her using choicest abuses against the appellant but merely stated that she did number remember.
The appellant preferred a Special Leave Petition before this Court.
Any Body dealing with him shall be doing so at his own risk, his authority to represent the firm has been revoked and numbere should deliver him orders, cash cheques or drafts payable to the firm.
Whether plaintiff is entitled to get any other relief?
The Trial Court stated that both parties have levelled allegations of character assassination against each other but failed to prove them.
The appellant deposited the amount as directed.
Whether plaintiff is entitled to get the decree of dissolution of marriage against defendant?
The learned Trial Court came to a definite companyclusion that the respondent had filed a very large number of cases against the appellant and got him harassed and tortured by the police.
According to the High Court, the appellant had been living with one Shivangi.
According to him, the respondent again got a case under Sections 323/324 P.C. registered in the police station Panki, Kanpur City and efforts were made to get the appellant arrested.
The appellant and the respondent are husband and wife.
According to findings of the Trial Court, the appellant was mentally, physically and financially harassed and tortured by the respondent.
Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated.
He is numbermore in the employment of the firm.
