SRISHTI v. BHUPINDER SINGH NEGI

1. Having perused the impugned decision we are of the opinion that it would neither serve the cause of the respondent nor the appellant if their agony is prolonged.

2. It appears to be a case where the appellant is under a parental pressure to pursue the instant appeal, which has been filed with a delay of nearly one year.

3. Impugned order would reveal that the appellant was without a defence. She did not even ensure that her counsel cross-examined the respondent, whose deposition went unchallenged.

4. Appellant was in love with a fellow student when she was pursuing the ICWA Course. Unfortunately for her, the boy was from a different religion; andwe understand parental pressure to insistuponthe MAT.APP. (F.C.) 1/2013 page 1 of[3] 2013:DHC:7094-DB appellantnot to marry that boy.

5. The irrefutable evidence brought by the respondent was in the form of messages received by the respondent on her mobile phone No.9711527054. The first SMS was the one received by the appellant the day she got married to the respondent. The SMS reads as under:- "TERl SHADI HO GAYI HE MAIN TERE BINA NAHI REH PA RAHA HUN.

MERE EXAMBHIKHARAB HO GAYE HE MERA BABU TERE PAAS HE USKA KHAYALRAKHNA."

6. Various photographs Ex.PW-1/9 to Ex.PW-1/22 as also video recordings on CDs exhibited as Ex.PW-1/5 to Ex.PW-1/7 undisputably show the immense emotional bond between the appellant and her boyfriend. These documents could not have reached the hands ofthe respondent unless appellant voluntarily handed over the same to the respondent. 7_ Further proof lies in a memorandum of mutual understanding drawn up between the couple resulting in HMA No.1084/2010 being filed seeking divorce by mutual consent which was dismissed on account of the statutory one year period not being completed. The document has been signed voluntarily by the appellant evidencing adesire for the matrimonial bond to be snapped. 8_ The only worthwhile contention argued in the appeal is that if the appellant was not interested in the marriage why should she go for a honeymoon withherhusband.

9 It does happen in life then when faced with decisions not to one's liking being forced down the gullet, the party lives with the decision for sometime. MAT.APP.(F.C.) 1/2013

10. The respondent has in his testimony categorically stated that though the appellant accompanied him for a honeymoon to Shimla but their relationship was not that of a husband and wife. Appellant continued to receive messages from her boyfriend.

11. Conscious of the fact that instant appeal is a first appeal, noting the facts as above we dismiss the appeal in limine and do not bother ourselves with respect to the delay in filing the instant appeal which we find is of 365 days.

12. The appeal, CM No.6756/2013 and CM No.6755/2013 are accordingly dismissed.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. APRIL 29, 2013 mamta MATAPP.(F.C.) 1/20J[3]

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. page 3 of[3]