Nishi vs Jagdish Ram on 29 September, 2016

2. The social and economic status of the parties to this appeal can be
inferred from their respective residential addresses. The marriage was
arranged through a charitable trust of a mandir. The respondent/husband
though an employee (UDC) with MCD, the appellant/wife was doing some
private job earning about ₹6,000 – ₹7,000 per month and was having a
mother with no source of income.
3. The appellant/wife entered the matrimonial home nurturing a dream
to have separate home for two of them only. The respondent/husband was
shouldering the family responsibilities and was not comfortable in having a

MAT.APP. (F.C.) 72/2016 Page 1 of 12
separate accommodation or bear the unnecessary burden of paying the rent
and running two kitchens. Since the appellant/wife was not even allowing
him cohabitation for days together, may be to put a pressure on him to
concede to her demand to have a separate house, mid way found by him was
to make some arrangement in the same house. He along with his wife
shifted to the first floor within a few months of marriage. Apparently it was
a perfect solution to strike a balance between sharing family responsibilities
and meeting the demand of his newly-wed wife to make her happy. Even
this could not succeed as the respondent/husband has claimed that he was
not allowed to sleep on the first floor by his wife leaving no option for him
but to sleep at the ground floor. Birth of a son to the parties also did not
bring any change in their life so far as this issue was concerned. The
appellant/wife left the matrimonial home on December 08, 2007 after
making various police complaints against the husband and in-laws. A small
issue i.e. to have separate accommodation could not be settled by the parties
even after about four years of their togetherness. At the bottom of the
problem, fault appears to be with the approach of the parties to tackle the
issue.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*