Prem Chand Jain vs Manju Jain & Anr on 11 July, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2234 / 2017
Prem Chand Jain S/o Mangi Lal Jain, Aged About 47 Years,
Resident of F-2 Pratap Nagar, UIT Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. Manju Jain W/o Prem Chand Jain D/o Gautam Chand Jain,
Resident of Behind the Safi Building, Rupawaton Ka Bas,
Soorsagar, Jodhpur

2. The Learned Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Dr Sachin Acharya
For Respondent(s) : Mr Ripudaman Singh
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
11/07/2017

This writ petition is preferred by the petitioner being

aggrieved with the order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the Family

Court No.1, Jodhpur (for short ‘the trial court’ hereinafter) in Civil

Original Suit No.587/2014, whereby the application filed on behalf

of the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. with a prayer for

framing one additional issue has been rejected.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an

application (divorce petition) under section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’ hereinafter)

seeking divorce from his wife respondent No.1 – Manju Jain before

the trial court. After service of notice of the divorce petition,

respondent No.1 filed reply to it and on the basis of the pleadings
(2 of 9)
[CW-2234/2017]

of the parties, the trial court framed two issues on 18.05.2016,

which are reproduced hereunder:

“1- vk;k vizkFkhZ;k us fookg ds vuq”Bku ds i’pkr~ izkFkhZ
vius ifr izsepUn ds lkFk Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k gS
izkFkhZ
2- vuqrks”k D;k gS ”

On the same day, the petitioner moved an application under Order

14 Rule 5 CPC (Annexure-5) while contending that the petitioner

remained present before the trial court at 10:30 A.M. and

requested the court that he wants to file rejoinder in the matter

and as the respondent No.1 was not present at that time in the

court he went out of the court for quite some time and while

returning he was informed that the trial court has already framed

the issues.

In the application, it is also mentioned that the

petitioner has already moved an application for taking rejoinder on

record and also produced certain documents, with the help of

which he would prove the allegations of adultery and physical and

mental cruelty against the respondent No.1. It is prayed that the

issues framed by the court are not sufficient and the facts pleaded

by him in the rejoinder and the documents produced by him

require framing of an additional issue.

In the end, the petitioner prayed for allowing his

application for framing an additional issue. The additional issue

proposed by the petitioner in the application under Order 14 Rule

5 CPC is reproduced hereunder:

(3 of 9)
[CW-2234/2017]

“1 , ^^vk;k vizkFkhZ;k ds fookg ds i’pkr O;fHkpkj iw.kZ
thou ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ rykd izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh
gSA”

Along with the application (Annexure-5), the petitioner

also moved an application seeking permission to file rejoinder in

the case. Respondent No.1 filed reply to the application

(Annexure-5) and the trial court after hearing the counsel for the

parties has rejected the said application vide impugned order. The

relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder:

“izLrqr vfrfjDr rudh ftl izdkj ls izkFkhZ us dk;e
djokus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA ikoyh dks ns[kus ls ;s lkeus
vkrk gS fd vizkFkhZ;k dh vU; O;fDr;ksa ls ckrphr gksus ds
laca/k esa pSV gksus ,oa eksckby dkWy fMVsYl ds dkxtkr
is’k fd;s x;s gS ijarq D;k ckrphr gksus ds rF; /kkjk 13
fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e ds varxZr fookg foPNsn dk vk/kkj
gS] bl lanHkZ esa ge /kkjk 13¼1½ esa of.kZr vk/kkj dks ns[krs gS
rks ;s lkeus vkrk gS fd nwljs i{kdkj us fookg ds vuq”Bku
ds i’pkr vius ifr ;k iRuh ls fHkUu fdlh O;fDr ds lkFk
LosPN;k eSFkqu fd;k gS] rc fookg foPNsn dk vk/kkj gks
ldrk gS fdUrq iRuh dh xqe’kwnxh dh fjiksVZ] vU; O;fDr
ls pSV ,oa dkWy fMVsYl dks LosPN;k eSFkqu dh Js.kh esa ekuk
tkrk gks] ekuus ;ksX; ugha gSA

mDr nj[okLr ij mHk; i{kksa dks lquk x;kA bl izdj.k esa
vU; ftu O;fDr;ksa ls vizkFkhZ;k ckr djrh gS] mUgsa i{kdkj
Hkh ugha cuk;k x;k gSA esjh jk; esa ;kfpdk ds fuLrkj.k gsrq
ftl izdkj ls izkFkZuk i is’k dj rudh ua- 1 , tksM+us dk
fuosnu fd;k x;k gS] og tksM+uk U;k;laxr ugah gksxkA vr%
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i izdj.k dh dk;Zokgh esa
vuko’;d foyac djus gsrq is’k tkuk izrhr gksrk gSA vr%
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i vraxZr vkns’k 14 fu;e
5 lh-ih-lh- vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA “

Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the

READ  Salim Kadar Inamdar-vs-State Of Maharashtra on 21 July, 2005

petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the application filed by the

petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC with a prayer for framing an
(4 of 9)
[CW-2234/2017]

additional issue. It is contended that even if the rejoinder filed by

the petitioner is ignored then also from the averments made in

the application under section 13 of the Act of 1955, it is clear that

the petitioner has levelled allegations regarding the immoral

character and adultery against the respondent No.1 and those

averments are sufficient to frame additional issue as suggested by

the petitioner in his application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the

trial court without appreciating the averments made in application

under section 13 of the Act of 1955 in right perspective has

rejected the application filed by the petitioner simply by saying

that as the petitioner has alleged that the respondent No.1 used

to chat and talk with other persons on mobile and these

allegations are not sufficient to frame the additional issue as

allegations regarding wilful copulation with other person has not

been specifically levelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention

of the court particularly towards para 8 to 20 of the application

(Annexure-1) and has argued that from the averments made in

these paras, it is clear that the petitioner has alleged that

respondent No.1 has wilfully developed physical relation with

many other persons and as such she is living in adultery.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore,

prayed that the impugned order passed by the trial court is liable

to be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for

framing additional issue, as proposed, is liable to be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
(5 of 9)
[CW-2234/2017]

respondent has vehemently argued that from bare perusal of the

averments of the application preferred by the petitioner under

section 13 of the Act of 1955 before the trial court, it is clear that

there is no allegation to the effect that respondent No.1 has

developed physical relationship with other persons or copulated

with any other person other than her husband and, therefore, the

facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant framing of an

additional issue as proposed by by the petitioner in his application

(Annexure-5).

It is also argued that as per Rule 801G of Rules of the

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, in a petition for

divorce filed before the trial court on the ground that respondent

is living in adultery or has committed adultery with any person,

the petitioner shall make such person a co-respondent. It is

submitted that as the petitioner has not made any person as co-

respondent along with respondent – Manju in his divorce petition

filed before the trial court, it is clear that the allegation of adultery

or immoral character has not been raised by the petitioner in his

application under section 13 of the Act of 1955.

Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in

the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, there is

no illegality in passing of the impugned order, hence, the same is

not liable to be interfered with .

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

impugned order and carefully scrutinized the material available on

record.

The petitioner in his application under section 13 of the
(6 of 9)
[CW-2234/2017]

READ  Monika Goyal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 19 May, 2017

Act of 1955 filed before the trial court in the initial paras has

stated that the respondent – Manju used to force him to live

separately from the joint family and used to quarrel with him on

this point. However, from para 9 onwards, the allegations have

been levelled to the effect that the respondent – Manju is

maintaining relations with other persons, names of whom are

specifically mentioned in paras 9,11,12 and 15. Thereafter, in para

17, allegations against respondent – Manju were levelled to the

effect that she has developed relations with one Ajit. In para 19, it

is specifically alleged that respondent – Manju had eloped with Ajit

son of Mukesh on 24.09.2014 and later on was traced in a

Dharmshala at Delhi on 02.10.2014. Paras 18 to 22 of the divorce

petition are reproduced hereunder:

“18- ;g gS fd vizkFkhZ;k us ctk, Lo;a dks lq/kkjus ds
vius cPpksa dks Hkh viuh vuSfrd ftUnxh dk fgLlk cuk
fy;k vkSj izkFkhZ ds f[kykQ HkMdk fn;kA vizkFkhZ;k ds
O;Hkhpkj dh ijhf.krh ;g jgh fd izkFkhZ us ,d fnu
vizkFkhZ;k dks ckFk:e ds jks[ks ls [kqn dh v’yhy rLohj
vius eksckbZy ls mrkjdj lks’kyehfM;k ds tfj;s vius
laidZ esa vk, O;fDr;ksa dks Hkstrs ns[kkA ;g ns[kdj izkFkhZ
ds iSjksa rys tehu f[kld x;hA rc izkFkhZ us fgEer djds
ckFk:e dk njoktk tcjnLrh [kqyokdj vizkFkhZ;k ls
mldk eksckbZy Nhu fy;kA bl ij vizkFkhZ;k us izkFkhZ ds
lkFk vR;f/kd xM+k fd;k vkSj nwljs fnu lqcg vius
ihgj pyh x;hA rRi’pkr izkFkhZ dh iqh dh ftEesnkjh
iw.kZr;k izkFkhZ ij vk x;hA izkFkhZ Lo;a us gh viuh iqh
fnf{krk dh fnup;kZ laHkkyhA dqN fnu O;rhr gksus ds ckn
vizkFkhZ;k vius vki vkdj izkFkhZ ds lkFk jgus yxhA izkFkhZ
ds ukSdjh ij pys tkus ds i’pkr~ vizkFkhZ;k fnuHkj
rjgrjg ds yksxksa ds lkFk HkVdrh jgrh vkSj ?kj dk
rkyk yxkdj pkch vius lkFk ys tkrh]] o vkWfQl ls
okfil vkus ds i’pkr~ izkFkhZ dks ?kj rkyk feyrkA rks mls
etwcjho’k vius ekrkfirk ds ;gka ‘kj.k ysuh iM+rhA o”kZ
2014 esa vizkFkhZ;k dh ;g gjdr c+ x;h vkSj izkFkhZ dks
tcjnLrh vius ekrkfirk ds ;gka jgus gsrq etcwj gksuk
iM+kA izkFkhZ dh vuqifLFkfr esa vizkFkhZ;k us vius ‘kkSdekSt
o Qksu] usV fjpktZ] migkj o vuSfrd laca/kksa dks cuk,
j[ku gsrq ?kj dk dherh lkeku o xgus bR;kfn Hkh csp
fn;sA vizkFkhZ;k dh tc bPNk gksrh rc og ?kj vkrh vkSj
tc bPNk gksrh rc og vius cPpksa dks ysdj pyh tkrhA
vizkFkhZ;k dk ;g mijksDr leLr O;ogkj izkFkhZ ds izfr
(7 of 9)
[CW-2234/2017]

‘kkjhfjd rFkk ekufld Øwjrk o O;Hkhpkj dh Js.kh esa vkrk
gSA
19- ;g gS fd fnukad 22-09-2014 dks jkh es atc izkFkhZ
vius ekrkfirk ds ;gka Fkk rc jkh 2 cts izkFkhZ ds llqj
Jh xkSrepan tSu dk Qksu vk;k vkSj mUgksaus izkFkhZ dks
‘kh?kzkrh’kh?kz ?kj cqyk;kA ogka tkus ij izkFkhZ dks Kkr gqvk
fd vizkFkhZ;k fiNys dqN fnuksa ls ?kj vk x;h Fkh vkSj ;gh
ls vthr uke ds mDr O;fDr ds lkFk yxkrkj
okWV~l,i@QSlcqd ds tfj;s laidZ esa FkhA ;g ckr izkFkhZ
dks viuh cM+h fnf{krk ls Kkr gqbZA fnf{krk us crk;k fd
tc og Ldwy x;h gqbZ Fkh rc ls gh vizkFkhZ;k ?kj ugha
vkbZ gSA izkFkhZ ds fy;s ;g rks xgjk Vdk o lnek Fkk]
ijarq izkFkhZ us vius vki dks laHkkydj vizkFkhZ;k ds ihgj
okyks ds lkFk feydj vizkFkhZ;k dh dkQh ryk’k dh] ijarq
vizkFkhZ;k dh dksbZ tkudkjh izkIr ugha gqbZA rc izkFkhZ o
izkFkhZ ds llqj Jh xkSrepan tSu us la;qDr :i ls ,d
xqe’kqnxh fjiksVZ ih,l izrkiuxj] fjiksVZ la[;k 30@2014
fnukad 24-09-2014 dks ntZ djok;hA lHkh txg w¡ ysus
ds i’pkr~ Hkh vizkFkhZ;k dks dksbZ lqjkx ugha feyus ij
iqfyl }kjk eksckbZy ua- 9001697008] 707321020]
7688960138 ls dkWy fMVsy fudyokus dk iz;kl
fd;kA ;g lHkh ua- ogh ua- Fks ftuds }kjk vizkFkhZ;k fdlh
u fdlh rjhds ls dbZ O;fDr;ksa ls laidZ cuk, gq, FkhA
fdarq lQyrk gkFk ugha yxhA ftl ij eksckbZy ua-

9785719953 dh tkudkjh gqbZA ftl ij iqfyl }kjk tk¡p
fd;s tkus ij irk pyk fd ;s ua- fdlh vthr iq Jh
eqds’k uked O;fDr dk gSA rc iqfyl }kjk vthr ds firk
Jh eqds’k ds Qksu ua- 8058159610 ij laidZ fd;k x;kA
rc Kkr gqvk fd vthr dh Hkh t;iqj egs’k uxj Fkkus esa
xqe’kqnxh dh fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZ tk pqdh gSA ftl ij
iqfyl }kjk vizkFkhZ;k dh yksds’ku irk fd;s tkus ds
i’pkr fnYyh esa fLFkr ,d /keZ’kkyk esa fnukad 2-10-2014
dks vizkFkhZ;k dks vthr lfgr cjken fd;k x;kA iqfyl }
kjk vthr o vizkFkhZ;k dks tks/kiqj yk;k x;kA mfpr
dk;Zokgh ds i’pkr~ iqfyl us vthr o mlds firk dks ,oa
vizkFkhZ;k dks mldh bPNkuqlkj mlds firk Jh xkSrepan
tSu dks lqiqnZ dj fn;k x;kA mDr i’pkr~ vizkFkhZ;k Fkkus
ls lh/ks vius ihgj pyh x;hA
20- ;g gS fd vizkFkhZ;k dk ;g t?kU; vijk/k izkFkhZ ds
izfr ekufld Øwjrk] O;Hkhpkj o tkjdeZ dh Js.kh esa vkrk
gSA 11 fnu fdlh vU; O;fDr ds lkFk ?kj ls ckgj jgus
ds i’pkr~ fdlh vU; O;fDr ls ‘kkjhfjd lEcU/k cukus
i’pkr~ izkFkhZ ds fy, vc ;g drbZ laHko ugha gS fd og
viuh ifRu ds lkFk oSokfgd laca/k iqu% LFkkfir djsA
yxHkx 25 o”kZ rd izkFkhZ viuh ifRu ds ‘kkjhfjd rFkk
ekufld Øwjrkiw.kZ O;ogkj o O;Hkhpkjiw.kZ thou dks lgu
djrk jgkA rkfd izkFkhZ o mlds ifjokj dh lekt esa
izfr”Bk o bTtr dks fdlh izdkj dk nkx u yxs] ijarq
vizkFkhZ;k ds bl t?kU; vijk/k us izkFkhZ dk laiw.kZ thou
ej.k leku dj fn;k gSA uk flQZ izkFkhZ cfYd izkFkhZ ds
ekrkfirk o HkkbZ;ksa ds ifjokj Hkh vizkFkhZ;k ds bl d`R;
ls Hkkjh lkekftd o ikfjokfjd vieku dks syus gsrq
etcwj gSA ,sls esa izkFkhZ ds ikl ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds le{k
;g ;kfpdk okLrs rykd varxZr /kkjk 13 ¼1½ ¼,½ o /kkjk
(8 of 9)
[CW-2234/2017]

READ  M/S. Rama Panel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs S.Shankar & Anr. on 7 August, 2014

13 ¼1½ ¼i½ ds rgr is’k djus ds vykok dksbZ pkjk ugha
jgrk gSA vizkFkhZ;k ds mDr lHkh vkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij
izkFkhZ ;g ;kfpdk is’k dj jgk gSA ”

After careful reading of the above referred averments

of the divorce petition filed by the petitioner, this Court is

convinced that sufficient allegations regarding immoral character

and adulterous life leading by the respondent – Manju have been

levelled by the petitioner in his divorce petition. The averments

made in paras 18 to 22 of the divorce petition have been denied

by the respondent – Manju in her reply to the divorce petition.

Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court is wrong in

observing that the petitioner has only levelled the allegations

regarding chatting and talking on mobile phone and has not

levelled allegation of wilful copulation by respondent – Manju with

any other person other than her husband.

The contention of the learned counsel for the

respondent that as the petitioner has not made any other person

as co-respondent with respondent – Manju, it will be presumed

that he has not filed divorce petition against her on the ground of

adultery is considered and rejected for two reasons. First that if in

a divorce petition despite levelling allegations of adultery, the

petitioner fails to implead the person as co-respondent, with

whom his or her spouse is living in adultery, the trial court can

take note of this fact and pass an appropriate order in the matter.

Second, that the person who has filed petition for divorce on the

ground of adultery can also apply to the court for dispensing with
(9 of 9)
[CW-2234/2017]

the joinder of such person as co-respondent on any of the grounds

mentioned in Rule 801G(a) of the Rules of the High Court of

Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952.

In view of the above discussions, this writ petition

succeeds and is allowed, the impugned order dated 12.01.2017

passed by the trial court is set aside, the application (Annexure-5)

filed by the petitioner for framing additional issue is allowed and

the trial court is directed to frame proposed additional issue and to

proceed with the case expeditiously. No order as to costs.

Stay petition stands disposed of.

Record of the trial court be sent immediately.

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

m.asif/PS

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *