There is specific averment that respondent is in habit of taking loans and he also took loan in the name of wife i.e. appellant and he also made her guarantor in some loans. He failed to repay his loans and as a result, appellant faced embarrassment. Respondent along with friends cheated one Ms. Dolly Gujral, who lodged FIR against them under various sections of IPC in police station Raipur, Dehradun. Respondent used filthy language and had not spent time with appellant. He spent most the time with one lady, who is residing in the same apparent where parties lived. He also gave beatings to his wife i.e. appellant.
6. Taking of loan is neither an offence nor shameful act but failed to repay it may cause embarrassment, as lender comes to recover his loan by any means. It also maligns the reputation of a person is society. Appellant is a house wife. Respondent also took loan in the name of his wife / appellant and also made her guarantor. Appellant has no source of income and she was deserted by her husband. In such circumstance, it was very painful for her to live because she has no source of income but has to repay the loan.
7. Learned Judge Family Court failed to appreciate evidence in right prospect. Learned Judge Family Court treated the condition of parties, as if they are living in penury while the fact is respondent / husband had taken various loans including for purchasing of luxury cars but he is not repaying the loans, which causes embarrassment and mental agony to the appellant.
8. In view of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maya Devi Vs. Jagdish Prasad reported in AIR 2007 SC 1426 it can safely be said that all the activities and conducts of the
husband respondent are sufficient to establish the cruelty meted out by him to appellant.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
First Appeal No. 133 of 2017
Smt. Manpreet Verma. Vs Brij Verma.
Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.
Hon’ble Alok Singh,J.