Meena Agarwal @ Pallavi Goyal vs Pradeep Kumar Goyal on 8 August, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3485 / 2006

Meena Agarwal @ Pallavi Goyal W/o Shri Pradeep Goyal, D/o Shri
Ramgopal Agarwal Advocate, R/o Bhagirath Bhawan, Bad Pipal Ka
Ped, Oswali Mohalla, Kishangarh Madanganj, Ajmer.

—-Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Goyal, R/o B-43,
Shakti Nagar, Tonk Road, at present residing at 12 Gordhan Nagar,
New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.

—-Respondent

DB CIVIL MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 OF
THE FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.9.2006
PASSED BY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AJMER IN
MATRIMONIAL CASE No.117/2006.

__
For Appellant : Mr. R. P. Garg with
Mr. Ravi Kasliwal.

For Respondent : Mr. Lokesh Sharma with
Mr. Rajendra Vaish.

__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
JUDGMENT
08/08/2017

(PER HON’BLE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI J.)

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife

under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the judgment

and decree dated 19.9.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Ajmer

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Family Court’) in Matrimonial Case
(2 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

No.117/2006, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-

husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking

divorce, was allowed.

Skeletal material facts necessary for the disposal of the

appeal are that the respondent-husband has filed petition under

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘Act’) for seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty with the

averment that marriage between the appellant and the respondent

was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on

3.12.1997 at Jaipur. Thereafter, the appellant-wife was living with

the respondent-husband and his parents at B-39, Triveni Nagar,

Jaipur. After marriage, the respondent-husband came to know that

the appellant-wife is suffering from mental derangement and thus,

the appellant used to cry and misbehave with her in-laws on very

small things. The appellant is under influence of her parents. She

used to shout, abuse, leave no occasion for quarrel and being

aggressive. These were a recurring and continuous behavior by

appellant-wife Meena with all members. It shows that the

appellant-wife is suffering from mental disorder. The appellant-

wife always reiterated that she is an educated woman and her

father-Shri Ramgopalji and brother-Shri Mahesh are Advocates in

Kishangarh and gave threats to respondent-husband to send him

and his parents to Jail in a false case.

The respondent-husband also pleaded that the appellant-wife

quarreled with the respondent-husband on petty matters and she

used filthy language and gave threats to commit suicide also.

When the respondent-husband complained to her parents with
(3 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

regard to her behavior, they simply said that the appellant is not

at fault and the respondent-husband and his parents have to

adjust.

It is also pleaded that from their wedlock a male child Rajat

was born on 7.11.1999, then too the behavior of the appellant did

not change. On 5.12.1999, the respondent-husband organised

function and Pooja i.e. ‘Jalwa Pujan’ at Jaipur and a number of

relatives, friends and neighbours including parents of the appellant

were invited. In this public function, the appellant-Meena and her

parents raised voice, quarreled, demanded the only house of Shri

S. C. Goyal in favour of appellant-Meena and when the respondent

refused to do so, they insulted, shouted and created chaos

publicly and the function was disturbed and the image of the

respondent’s family was tarnished in front of all friends, relatives

and neighbours.

It is also averred that the respondent-husband has three

married sisters-Smt. Anita, Smt. Rashmi and Smt. Neelima and

they are living at their matrimonial home, but whenever they

come at respondent-husband’s home to celebrate festival etc., the

appellant-wife always quarrelled and misbehaved with them, even

went to their matrimonial home and used filthy language.

It is also averred that in the month of June, 2000, the

appellant-wife after quarreling with her parents-in-law and without

taking permission from them, left her matrimonial home and

shifted to her maternal home at Kishangarh. The respondent-

husband, his father and his other relatives went to Kishangarh and

talked with her parents and also told them about the behavior of
(4 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

the appellant-wife with them. The parents of the appellant-wife

felt sorry for the behavior of the appellant and assured them that

she would not repeat the same. On being assured, the

respondent’s father and his relatives took the appellant to her

matrimonial home i.e. Jaipur on 5.8.2000, but later the appellant-

wife repeated the same behavior with the respondent-husband

and his parents.

It is further averred that looking at the continuous quarrel,

shouting and ill behavior of the appellant-wife, the parents of

respondent-husband suggested him to live separately with the

appellant. They shifted to a rented premises on 12.9.2000, but

even then things did not improve and she was more aggressive

and also started doing ‘Marpeet’ with the respondent-husband.

The appellant-wife also gave beatings to her one year old child

brutally, which shows her mental disorder. It is further pleaded

that she also went to the house of her in-laws on and off and used

to quarrel with parents of the respondent unnecessarily.

It is also averred that being harassed with this regular

quarrel, the parents of the respondent-husband issued public

notice in the local newspaper on 15.10.2000 for depriving from his

property. When the parents of the appellant-wife came to know

about this advertisement, they went to the matrimonial house of

the appellant and quarreled with her parents-in-law and they also

came to the house of the respondent and gave threats and gave

beating to him. On 16.10.2000, the appellant-wife telephoned

sister of the respondent and abused her and thereafter

on 19.12.2000, she went to house of elder sister of the
(5 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

respondent and abused and misbehaved with her.

It is further pleaded that on 19.12.2000 itself, the parents

and brother of the appellant came to respondent’s house and after

abusing and misbehaving with him and his parents, she left the

house of the respondent and went to her parents’ house without

his permission and also took away her dowry articles. It is also

averred that the conduct of the appellant-wife ruined goodwill of

the respondent in the society and the same is unbearable for him.

It was prayed in the petition that this conduct of the appellant

amounts to mental cruelty and the decree for dissolution of

marriage may be granted.

The appellant filed her written statement. In the written

statement the appellant denied the allegations levelled by the

respondent-husband with regard to the cruelty in his divorce

petition. It has been stated by the appellant-wife in her written

statement that soon after engagement, parents of the respondent

raised their demand and asked the father of the appellant to

spend 7 to 8 lacs in the marriage. Father of the appellant was not

in a position to spend such a huge amount, still he spent 4 lac

rupees in the marriage. As such from the day of marriage,

mother-in-law and sisters-in-law started to harass the appellant.

The respondent was the only son, still they have been given room

in basement, whereas house of the parents of the respondent is

double storeyed. When harassment of her in-laws still continued,

then both of them decided to live separately. It has been further

stated that appellant got pregnant and she has been forced by her

mother-in-law and sisters-in-law for sonography test to find out
(6 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

the sex of the child and when in the sonography test it was found

that in the womb it was female child, then her sister-in-law, who

is a doctor, aborted the appellant.

It has also been stated that she never demanded any

property and she never misbehaved with her in-laws and she

never insulted or disrespected her in-laws and does not want

divorce from the respondent. The allegations levelled in the

divorce petition against the appellant with regard to suicide, using

filthy language, demand of property, beating her son and mental

derangement were totally false and baseless. It has also been

stated that husband of sister-in-law of the appellant tried to

outrage her modesty and when she made complaint about it to

her husband and his parents, they gave beatings to her and threw

her out of the house. The dowry articles are in possession of her

in-laws. Lastly, it has been stated that the said divorce petition

READ  Rajesha Sm S/O. Kotraiah Sm vs Smt. M. C. Pornima W/O S M Rajesha on 24 April, 2017

has been filed at the instigation of respondent’s parents and

sisters, as such the same should be dismissed with cost.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court

framed the following issues :

(1) Whether the non-petitioner has treated the petitioner with

cruelty so as to entitle the petitioner for decree of

divorce ?

(2) Whether this Court or only the Court at Ajmer has

jurisdiction to decide the petition ?

(3) Whether the petition is barred by limitation ?

(4) Relief ?

(7 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

In support of the petition, the respondent-husband examined

as many as 8 witnesses. In defence, the appellant-wife examined

as many as 7 witnesses.

The learned Family Court after evaluating and appreciating

the evidence available on record and after hearing both the parties

arrived at a conclusion that the respondent-husband has been

able to prove that he was treated by the appellant with cruelty,

therefore, the petition filed on behalf of respondent was allowed

and it was ordered that the marriage between the parties be

dissolved vide impugned judgment dated 19.9.2006.

The appellant-wife felt aggrieved with the aforesaid

judgment dated 19.9.2006 and filed the present appeal.

Mr. R. P. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant-wife

submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court has committed

grave error of law while passing the impugned judgment, as the

respondent could not prove cruelty by the appellant from his

evidence, on the contrary, cruelty by the respondent is established

from the evidence on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that no

medical evidence has been placed on record to prove that the

appellant is suffering from mental disorder. Learned counsel also

submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court did not appreciate

the evidence of the appellant in right manner while deciding the

divorce petition. Learned counsel further submitted that the

programme of ‘Jalwa Pujan’ organised by the respondent was

celebrated in a very happy atmosphere and the statements of
(8 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

witnesses of the respondent are contrary to each other on such

aspect and, therefore, the allegations levelled by the respondent

in the divorce petition are totally false.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that it is

not disputed that husband of the appellant is the only son and he

is successor of the property and, therefore, it cannot be believed

that appellant raised such type of unreasonable demand. Learned

counsel also contended that due to demand of dowry, the

appellant was tortured and harrassed by her parents-in-law and

sisters-in-law despite of the fact that the appellant did all house-

hold work and paid respect to her in-laws.

Learned counsel also contended that it would be unfair to the

appellant-wife to conclude that she had exhibited such cruelty

towards the respondent-husband and her in-laws that would

justify the dissolution of her marriage. The allegations levelled in

the petition are totally false, which has been made only to harass

the appellant and members of her maternal family to create

pressure on her to take divorce from the respondent. Learned

counsel has vehemently contended that it is not possible to label

the wife’s allegations detailed above as a false or a vindictive

action.

Per contra, Mr. Lokesh Sharma, learned counsel for the

respondent-husband controverting the submissions made on

behalf of the appellant-wife and reiterating the submissions made

in the petition raised the grounds that there was a twinfold police

enquiry one by the regular police station and other by the CID

(CB), by the Officer of Dy. S.P. rank and it is revealed that all the
(9 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

complaints were found false and incorrect and had been consigned

to record. Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that

appellant-Smt. Meena in her cross-examination had categorically

admitted the complaint and its fate and had further stated that

she had made two or three more complaints after 21.12.2000 and

as such false complaints of the appellant are sufficient to show

cruelty against the respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that from

the evidence collected and material made available on record,

learned Family Court has found the allegations made by the

respondent prima-faice found to be true and took note that the

behavior of the appellant regarding raising allegations,

threatening, creating chaos, quarrelling, shouting publicly and

creating tension to be made out.

We have considered the submissions made on behalf of

learned counsel for the respective parties, gone through the

record made available to us and relevant legal provisions.

The learned Family Court observed that the Issue No.2 has

become redundant, as the petition has been transferred from

Jaipur to Ajmer Court by order of the High Court. Learned Family

Court has decided Issue No.3 against the appellant holding that

the petition has been filed within limitation. Learned Family Court

has decided the Issue No.1 in favour of the respondent-husband

and against the appellant-wife and allowed the respondent’s

petition for dissolution of the marriage.

(10 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

Learned counsel for the appellant did not make any

submission with regard to Issue No.3 regarding limitation.

In substance, the respondent-husband in his petition for

divorce, has pleaded certain instances, which according to him,

constituted “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of

the Act entitling him to claim dissolution of marriage against the

appellant.

The first limb of cruelty alleged by the respondent is that

after marriage, the respondent came to know that the appellant is

suffering from mental derangement and thus, she used to cry and

misbehave with her in-laws on very petty matters. During

arguments, learned counsel for the respondent did not make any

submissions on this ground. The learned Family Court has

observed that the appellant is attending the Court regularly, she is

highly educated and is mentally sound. She understands the

things very well and nothing was observed to indicate that the

appellant is suffering from mental derangement and mentioned

this fact in the impugned judgment also.

The second ground of cruelty is that the parents, brother and

sisters of the appellant used to provoke the appellant against the

respondent and the appellant is under influence of her parents.

The appellant denied the allegations and stated that members of

her maternal family used to come on festivals only for courtesy

visits and they never provoked her against the respondent and/or

his family members. This ground of cruelty is general in nature

with no details. In this respect, the respondent-husband did not
(11 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

examine any independent witness to substantiate the allegation.

The witnesses examined by the respondent are AW.1-Pradeep

Kumar (respondent himself), AW.5-Suresh Chandra (his father),

AW.6-Smt. Shyamlata (his mother), AW.7-Dr. Dinesh Agarwal [his

brother-in-law (Bahnoi)] and AW.8-Smt. Anita Agarwal (his sister),

who are interested witnesses. AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay and AW.3-

Hemchandra Gupta are neighbours of the respondent, and AW.4-

Neeraj Soni is friend of the respondent, who gave no evidence in

this regard.

The third ground of cruelty alleged by the respondent is that

the appellant used to shout, abuse and leave no occasion to

quarrel and became aggressive with the respondent and his family

members. The appellant-wife quarreled with the respondent-

husband on petty matters and used filthy language. The appellant-

wife denied all these allegations. The allegations are general in

nature with no details. Though AW.5-Suresh Chandra and AW.6-

Shyam Lata, father and mother of the respondent corroborated

the statement of the respondent, but AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay and

AW.3-Hemchandra Gupta, who are neighbours of the respondent

gave no evidence to substantiate the allegation. Another witness

AW.4-Neeraj Soni, who is friend of the respondent and used to

remain with the respondent and the appellant, also gave no

evidence to substantiate the allegations levelled by the

respondent.

The fourth ground of cruelty is again about the appellant’s

behavior with the respondent. The respondent has alleged that at

several times in aggression, the appellant had beaten the
(12 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

respondent and such type of her behavior was recurring and

continuous. The appellant denied the allegations. The respondent

produced no evidence in support of the allegation.

The fifth ground of cruelty alleged by the respondent is that

whenever she was advised to speak gently and quietly, then she

came out of the house and shouted, gathered persons on the

street and used to scandalize the respondent and his family

READ  Navneet Lal Alias Rangi vs Gokul And Others on 9 December, 1975

members. AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay and AW.3-Hemchandra Gupta,

who are neighbours of the respondent, spoke nothing to

substantiate the allegation levelled by the respondent. AW.4-

Neeraj Soni, who is friend of the respondent, is also silent about

this allegation. The allegations are general in nature with no

details and without any corroboration by any independent witness.

The sixth ground of cruelty is that the appellant-wife used to

go to her parents’ house without seeking permission of the

respondent and his parents, which is denied by the appellant-wife.

This allegation is also of a general nature, with no details except

the instance of June, 2000.

The seventh ground of cruelty is that after the birth of son

Rajat from the wedlock, the respondent-husband organized

function i.e. ‘Jalwa Pujan’ on 5.12.1999 at Jaipur and good

number of relatives, friends and neighbours were invited. In this

function, the appellant and her parents raised voice, quarreled and

demanded to transfer the only house of father of the respondent

in favour of the appellant and when the respondent refused to do

so, they insulted, shouted and created chaos publicly and
(13 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

disturbed the function, which tarnished their image in front of all

friends, relatives and neighbours.

The appellant denied the allegation and pleaded that the

function of ‘Jalwa Pujan’ was performed peacefully and in happy

atmosphere. It is an admitted fact that many relatives, friends and

neighbours including parents of the appellant were invited in the

function and parents of the appellant also attended the same. In

support of the allegation, the respondent examined himself, his

father-Suresh Chandra (AW.5), his mother Smt. Shyamlata

(AW.6), his brother-in-law Dr. Dinesh Agarwal (AW.7) and his

sister Smt. Anita Agarwal (AW.8), who are interested witnesses. In

addition to above, respondent examined AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay

and AW.3-Hemchandra Gupta, who are neighbours and AW.4-

Neeraj Soni, is friend of the respondent. AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay

resides 3-4 houses away from the respondent. This witness did

not depose with regard to the alleged incident. AW.3-Hemchandra

Gupta, is also a neighbour of the respondent, who spoke nothing

in the examination-in-chief about the alleged incident, but in

cross-examination, the witness stated that he alongwith his family

members attended the function of ‘Jalwa Pujan’ organized by the

respondent and returned happily. He heard nothing about any

dispute at the function. AW.4-Neeraj Soni deposed that he

attended the function of ‘Jalwa Pujan’. Mother of the appellant told

the mother of the respondent to transfer the house in favour of

the appellant, then altercation took place and tension was created.

In cross-examination, the witness deposed that he attended the

function of ‘Jalwa Pujan’ in afternoon as such he did not know
(14 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

what happened earlier to that. The witness also stated that the

said incident of quarrel with regard to transfer of property took

place in the evening on that day, whereas AW.6-Shyamlata in her

cross-examination has stated that the function of ‘Jalwa Pujan’

was performed in happy atmosphere and in reply to the

suggestion, she deposed that the function was started at 11:00

am and lunch was organized. The witness also stated that the

appellant raised the demand to transfer the house in her name,

firstly in the morning and again at the time of lunch. In such

circumstances, the statement of AW.4-Neeraj Soni cannot be

relied upon. According to the respondent, good number of

relatives, friends and neighbours were present in the function

when the alleged demand was made and the appellant and her

relatives created chaos, but the respondent did not produce any

independent relative or neighbour to substantiate the allegation.

The eighth ground of cruelty alleged by the respondent is

that whenever sisters of the respondent came at his house, the

appellant-wife always quarreled and misbehaved with them.

Sometimes, the appellant went to their matrimonial home and

used filthy language and also quarreled with them. The appellant

denied the allegation. The allegations are general in nature with

no details. The respondent did not produce the members of in-

laws of his sisters, except AW.7-Dr. Dinesh Agarwal, who happens

to be brother-in-law of the respondent. Neither any neighbour nor

any other relative has been examined to substantiate the

allegation. In this way, the respondent did not produce any

independent evidence to substantiate the allegation. This
(15 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

allegation is also of general in nature with no specific details,

except the details of 19.12.2000, since when the parties are living

separately.

The ninth ground of cruelty is that in the month of June,

2000, the appellant, after quarreling with her parents-in-law and

without taking permission of them, left her matrimonial home and

went to her maternal home at Kishangarh. Thereafter, the

respondent, his father and other relatives went to Kishangarh and

talked to her parents. Parents of the appellant felt sorry for the

behaviour of the appellant and assured them that she would not

repeat the same. On being assured, the respondent’s father and

other relatives brought back the appellant to her matrimonial

home on 5.8.2000. The appellant denied the allegations and

stated that the respondent and his family members used to

torture her and gave beatings for not satisfying their demand of

dowry and when the appellant told all the things to her father and

brother, then her brother Mahesh came to Jaipur and had a talk

with respondent and his family members and brought the

appellant to Kishangarh with him, because the respondent did not

give any satisfactory response. The appellant admitted that on

5.8.2000, the respondent, his father and relatives came to

Kishangarh. The appellant also stated that the respondent and his

family members felt sorry for their misdeeds and assured that

they would not repeat the same, then parents of the appellant

sent her back to her matrimonial home. The respondent-husband

did not produce any witness, who took part in the meeting held at
(16 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

Kishangarh on 5.8.2000, which would have been the best possible

evidence to substantiate the allegation levelled by the respondent.

The tenth ground of cruelty is that looking to the continuous

misbehavior of the appellant-wife, the parents of the respondent

asked the parties to live separately from them, so they shifted to a

rented house on 12.9.2000, but even then things did not change

and she was more aggressive and gave beatings to the

respondent. It is also alleged that she used to call her father,

brother and other relatives, who threatened to send the

respondent and his family to jail. It is also alleged that despite

living separately in other house, the appellant used to go to the

house of the respondent’s parents in Triveni Nagar, Jaipur and

quarreled with them and threatened to commit suicide. The

appellant-wife denied the allegations levelled by the respondent.

In this respect, none of the neighbours of the house of the

respondent has been examined to substantiate the allegations.

The allegations are general in nature, with no details.

The eleventh ground of cruelty is that being harassed with

the regular cruelty, the parents of the respondent-husband issued

public notice in newspaper on 15.10.2000 depriving the

respondent from their property. The parents of the appellant came

to the house of respondent’s parents and quarreled with them.

They also went to the house of the respondent, where they

abused him, gave beatings and threatened to kill him. The

appellant denied the allegations. In this respect, the respondent

narrated the incident in his deposition recorded by the learned

Family Court. In support of his statement, the respondent
(17 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

examined AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay and AW.3-Hemchandra Gupta,

who are neighbours of the respondent.

According to AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay, 5-6 years ago in the

night, father of the respondent called him telephonically saying

that the relatives of his daughter-in-law are about to come and

there is apprehension of quarrel. When he went to the house of

respondent’s father, the main gate of his house was locked. Some

persons standing outside the house told the witness that some

relatives have come from outside, therefore, he did not go inside

and went to the house of Dev Sahab. Dev Sahab told the witness

that parents of the appellant called him that life of their daughter

(the appellant) is in danger and asked him to register a case with

the police, but the witness refused to do so. The witness also

READ  Sarup Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2005

stated that he stayed there for some time, but no one came there

till then. The witness also stated that on the next day, he came to

know that the matter was resolved peacefully. The witness also

stated that after some days, he went to the house of his

neighbour Shekhawat on his call, then he told the witness that the

appellant and her parents came to the house of the respondent’s

parents. The witness further stated that he enquired from the

appellant about the problem, if any, then she told that the

property should be transferred in her favour and interference of

respondent’s sisters should be stopped. The witness also deposed

that they tried to resolve the matter, but they were not in the

mood of settlement, then the witness returned to his house.

Thereafter, he came to know that divorce petition has been filed.

(18 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

In cross-examination, the witness stated that he never saw the

relatives of the appellant coming to her matrimonial home.

According to AW.3-Hemchandra Gupta, in the month of

October, 2000, father of the respondent informed him

telephonically that the appellant and her family members broke

the lock and are trying to enter in his house and prayed for help.

Thereafter, the witness and father of the respondent went to the

house of Shekhawat, where the meeting was going on regarding

transfer of property in favour of the appellant, but father of the

respondent refused to do so. Thereafter, the witness returned to

his home. The witness also stated that whenever he asked the

parents of the respondent about the problem, if any, then they

used to say that the appellant does not like their daughters and

sons-in-law. The appellant has been cross-examined at length by

learned counsel for the respondent, but no question has been

asked or suggestion was made to the appellant about the alleged

incident of 15.10.2000. It is admitted fact that neither any

complaint has been filed by the respondent nor by his parents for

the alleged incident.

The twelth ground of cruelty alleged by the respondent is

that on 19.12.2000, the appellant went to the house of Smt.

Anita, elder sister of the respondent, and abused and misbehaved

with her. On the same day, the parents and brother of the

appellant came to the respondent’s house, who abused and

misbehaved with him and thereafter the appellant left the house

of the respondent and went to her maternal home without his

permission. The appellant denied the allegations levelled in the
(19 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

petition and submitted that on 19.12.2000, respondent’s brother-

in-law (Bahnoi) Shri Mahesh Lashkari came to the house of the

respondent in his absence, misbehaved with the appellant and

attempted to outrage her modesty. She tried to save herself and

cried, then Shri Mahesh Lashkari ran away from there, giving a

threat to see her in future. After some time, Mahesh Lashkari

returned with his wife, respondent and respondent’s parents, who

abused and gave her beatings and threw her out of the house and

threatened for dire-consequences. In support of the counter

allegation, the appellant examined herself and her father NAW.7-

Ram Gopal Agarwal. To rebut the allegation levelled by the

appellant, the respondent did not produce his brother-in-law Shri

Mahesh Lashkari in the witness box to face the cross-examination

by the counsel for the appellant.

The thirteenth ground of cruelty is that after leaving

matrimonial home on 19.12.2000, brother of the appellant sent a

complaint to Chief Minister and others imputing false allegations.

The police came to the house of the respondent and made

enquiries, which tarnished the image of the respondent and his

parents in society. It is an admitted fact that the appellant herself

did not lodge any report against the respondent or his parents

with the police. It is not the case of the respondent that he or his

family members were harassed by the police.

In the case of Haumantha Rao Vs. S. Ramani reported in

AIR 1999 SC 1318, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the

representation made by parents of wife to Women Protection Cell

for reconciliation of estranged spouse does not amount to mental
(20 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

cruelty upon husband, particularly in absence of evidence of the

husband or his family members were harassed by the opposite

party.

A bare perusal of pleadings of the parties, reveal that almost

all the grounds taken by the respondent in his petition for

dissolution of marriage are stale or isolated. It is an admitted fact

that out of the wedlock, the appellant gave birth to a son on

7.11.1999. In June, 2000 the appellant went to her maternal

home leaving her matrimonial home. Thereafter the matter was

resolved on 5.8.2000 and the appellant returned to her

matrimonial home with the respondent and his parents. The

instances prior to 5.8.2000 are founded on general allegations,

with no details, such as who witnessed the incidents or what are

the background of such incidents. To us, the incidents occurred

prior to 5.8.2000 cannot be made ground of petition for

dissolution of marriage because the respondent-husband and his

parents deemed to have condoned the alleged acts of the

appellant. So far as the instances alleged to occur after 5.8.2000

are concerned, the same being isolated and does not constitute an

act of cruelty.

In view of above, the allegations levelled by the respondent-

husband are vague. Mere plea of the respondent-husband that

behaviour of the appellant-wife towards him, his parents and his

sisters and his brothers-in-law was cruel and rude does not

establish the cruelty as defined by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC

511. As discussed above, the alleged misbehavior of the
(21 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

appellant-wife is not found to be proved by reliable evidence to

persuade the Court to grant decree for dissolution of the marriage.

From the documentary evidence produced by the appellant-

wife, it reveals that parties belong to Agarwal community. Agarwal

Samaj Sewa Samiti published a magazine in the year 2004

regarding members of the community with their brief introduction.

In the magazine, details of family members of the respondent was

also published and a copy whereof has been produced by the

appellant. According to the details published in the magazine, the

respondent has been introduced as 30 years old unmarried

person. It can safely be inferred that the details published in the

magazine, have been provided by the members of the concerned

family. It is not the case of the respondent that he or his family

members did not provide the information published in the

magazine. It is also pertinent to note that the parties are living

separately since 19.12.2000 and the respondent has filed the

divorce petition on 2.1.2001 i.e. within 15 days only. In these

circumstances, it appears that the respondent-husband has filed

the petition against the appellant-wife for dissolution of marriage

to get rid of her. That being the position, the finding of learned

Family Court with regard to Issue No.1 is liable to be quashed and

set aside.

It appears to us from perusal of the evidence that the

respondent-husband has failed to make out any case of cruelty

against the appellant-wife.

(22 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]

Before parting with, we would like to observe that after a

long litigation, the parties would realize their obligations against

each other as also towards their grown up son Rajat, being his

parents. The parties should give quite burial to their past deeds

and bitter experiences and should start living together to settle

their son in his life. Such reunion would be in the interest of

members of both the families and will bring peace, harmony and

happiness.

In view of foregoing discussions, the appeal succeeds and is

hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated

19.9.2006 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in

Matrimonial Case No.117/2006 is quashed and set aside. As a

result, the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section

13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage is

dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the marriage between the

parties is held to subsist. No order as to costs.

(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI)J. (AJAY RASTOGI)J.

A.Arora/-

(Reserved)

Leave a Comment

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