HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
First Appeal No. 605/2017
Smt. Indu Chourasiya
Vs.
Trilok Chourasiya
Present : Hon’ble Shri Justice S.K.Gangele, Judge
Hon’ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, Judge
————————————————————————————-
Shri Shyam Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, Advocate for the respondent.
————————————————————————————-
JUDGMENT
(10/05/2018)
Per : S.K.Gangele, J :-
1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment
dated 14.07.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Jabalpur in C.S.No. 412-A/2016. By the aforesaid judgment, the
trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent and
granted a decree of divorce.
2. The marriage of the appellant-wife and respondent-
husband was solemnized on 30.04.2013 as per Hindu rituals at
Jabalpur. The appellant lived with the respondent for a brief
period. She returned to her maternal house on 25.07.2013. It is
pleaded by the respondent in the plaint that he had tried his best
to pursue the appellant to live with him. However, she did not
come back. Thereafter, respondent-husband filed an application
2 FA No. 605/2017
under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 03.03.2014. After
receiving notice of the aforesaid application, the appellant-wife
lodged FIR on 01.05.2014 against the respondent, his father
Ramesh, mother Asha, sister Deepika and uncle Hiralal
Chourasiya. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, offence under
Section 498-A, 506-B, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code was
registered against the respondent and his family. They were
arrested and thereafter, respondent-husband was released on bail.
Criminal Case No. 6115/2014 is pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class.
3. The Family Court in Civil Suit No. 2-A/2015 vide
judgment dated 15.05.2015 decreed the suit for restitution of
conjugal rights and directed the appellant to live with the
respondent. Inspite of that, the appellant did not go to live with
the respondent. She filed a suit for grant of maintenance under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which is pending. The respondent-husband
filed a suit for grant of decree of divorce. The respondent-
husband pleaded that the appellant practiced cruelty with her.
4. The trial Court issued notice on the suit filed by the
respondent. The notice was served on the appellant-wife.
Her counsel appeared before the Trial Court on 09.08.2016
and the Court granted time to the appellant to file reply.
3 FA No. 605/2017
Thereafter, the case was listed on 24.08.2016. On the said
date also, time was granted to the appellant. On
03.10.2016, nobody appeared before the trial Court on
behalf of the appellant. The Trial Court directed the
appellant to appear on the next date and file written
statement. The case was listed on 02.11.2016. On the
aforesaid date, nobody appeared before the trial Court on
behalf of the appellant, hence, the case was proceeded ex-
parte. Thereafter, the case was listed on 06.12.2016,
10.01.2017, 08.02.2017, 20.02.2017, 28.02.2017,
28.03.2017, 13.04.2017, 26.04.2017, 11.05.2017,
17.05.2017, 21.06.2017, 03.07.2017, 06.07.2017,
13.07.2017. The trial Court pronounced the judgement on
14.07.2017.
5. Respondent filed his affidavit before the trial Court in
support of the plaint and pleaded the same facts as pleaded in the
plaint. He also filed affidavit of Shri Sunil Kumar Chourasia
who is the neighbour of the respondent. He filed documents
before the trial Court.
6. After considering the aforesaid, the trial Court
awarded the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-
husband.
4 FA No. 605/2017
7. In the present case, the appellant pleaded that the
respondent had given assurance that he would compromise the
matter and withdraw the suit, hence, she did not appear before the
trial Court. It is further submitted by the appellant that she came
to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree from the news
published in the local newspaper at Sagar.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that the
ex-parte judgment and decree be set aside. Appellant be given
opportunity to contest the case and the non-appearance of the
appellant before the Trial Court is bonafide.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that
the appellant did not appear before the trial Court deliberately.
She did not obey the decree of restitution of conjugal rights. She
lodged FIR against the respondent and his family members.
Hence, the trial Court has rightly granted the decree of divorce in
favour of the respondent.
10. Admitted facts of the case are that after service of
notice, the appellant did not appear before the Trial Court. She
was proceeded ex-parte. Thereafter, case was listed on various
dates as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment.
After seven months of ex-parte order, the trial Court pronounced
the judgment. Contention of the appellant that the respondent
5 FA No. 605/2017
made an assurance that he would withdraw the suit for divorce
has no basis because the appellant did not file any application
before the Court or any other Authority that the respondent had
given her assurance for compromise. The appeal was referred to
mediation by this Court. The appellant did not appear in the
mediation proceedings also.
11. A decree of restitution of conjugal rights was passed
by the trial Court against the appellant. She did not obey the
aforesaid decree also. She lodged FIR against the family
members of the respondent and a criminal case is pending against
respondent.
12. The Apex Court in case of Saroj Rani Vs.
Sudarshan Kumar Chadha reported in (1984) 4 SCC 90 has
held as under when a party refuses to live together inspite of the
judgment and decree of restitution of conjugal rights :
“In India it may be borne in mind that conjugal
rights i.e. right of the husband or the wife to
the society of the other spouse is not merely
creature of the statute. Such a right is inherent
in the very institution of marriage itself. See in
this connection Mulla’s Hindu Law-15th Edn.
p. 567-Para 443. There are sufficient
safeguards in Section 9 to prevent it from
being a tyranny. The importance of the concept
of conjugal rights can be viewed in the light of
Law Commission-71st Report on the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955- “Irretrievable Breakdown
of Marriage as a Ground of Divorce, Para 6.5
where it is stated thus:-
6 FA No. 605/2017
“Moreover, the essence of marriage
is a sharing of common life, a
sharing of all the happiness that life
has to offer and all the misery that
has to be faced in life, an
experience of the joy that comes
from enjoying, in common, things
of the matter and of the spirit and
from showering love and affection
on one’s offspring. Living together
is a symbol of such sharing in all its
aspects. Living apart is a symbol
indicating the negation of such
sharing. It is indicative of a
disruption of the essence of
marriage-“breakdown” and if it
continues for a fairly long period, it
would indicate destruction of the
essence of marriage- “irretrievable
breakdown”.
Section 9 only is a codification of pre-existing
law. Rule 32 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil
Procedure deals with decree for specific
performance for restitution of conjugal rights or
for an injuction. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 32 is in
these terms:
“Where the party against whom a
decree for the specific performance
of a contract, or for restitution of
conjugal rights or for an injunction,
has been passed, has had an
opportunity of obeying the decree
and has willfully failed to obey it,
the decree may be enforced in the
case of a decree for restitution of
conjugal rights by the attachment
of his property or, in the case of a
decree for the specific performance
of a contract, or for an injunction
by his detention in the civil prison,
or by the attachment of his
property, or by both.”
It is significant to note that unlike a decree of
7 FA No. 605/2017
specific performance of contract, for restitution
of conjugal rights the sanction is provided by
court where the disobedience to such a decree
is willful i.e. is deliberate, in spite of the
opportunities and there are no other
impediments, might be enforced by attachment
of property. So the only sanction is by
attachment of property against disobedience of
a decree for restitution of conjugal rights where
the disobedience follows as a result of a willful
conduct i.e. where conditions are there for a
wife or a husband to obey the decree for
restitution of conjugal rights but disobeys the
same in spite of such conditions, then only
financial sanction, provided he or she has
properties to be attached, is provided for. This
is so as an inducement by the court in
appropriate case when the court has decreed
restitution for conjugal rights and that the court
can only decree if there is no just reason for not
passing decree for restitution of conjugal rights
to offer inducement for the husband or wife to
live together in order to give them an
opportunity to settle up the matter amicably. It
serves a social purpose as an aid to the
prevention of break-up of marriage. It cannot
be viewed in the manner the learned single
judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court has
viewed it and we are therefore unable to accept
the position that Section 9 of the said Act is
violative of Article 14 or Article 21 of the
Constitution if the purpose of the decree for
restitution of conjugal rights in the said Act is
understood in its proper perspective and if the
method of its execution in cases of
disobedience is kept in view.”
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.Srinivas
Rao Vs. D.A.Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 has held as
under with regard to mental cruelty and lodging false criminal
complaint against the family members of the husband by the
8 FA No. 605/2017
wife:
“Pursuant to this complaint, the police
registered a case under Section 498-A of the
IPC. The appellant-husband and his parents had
to apply for anticipatory bail, which was
granted to them. Later, the respondent-wife
withdrew the complaint. Pursuant to the
withdrawal, the police filed a closure report.
Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed a protest
petition. The trial court took cognizance of the
case against the appellant-husband and his
parents (CC No. 62/2002). What is pertinent to
note is that the respondent-wife filed criminal
appeal in the High Court challenging the
acquittal of the appellant-husband and his
parents of the offences under the Dowry
Prohibition Act and also the acquittal of his
parents of the offence punishable under Section
498-A of the IPC. She filed criminal revision
seeking enhancement of the punishment
awarded to the appellant-husband for the
offence under Section 498-A of the IPC in the
High Court which is still pending. When the
criminal appeal filed by the appellant-husband
challenging his conviction for the offence under
Section 498-A of the IPC was allowed and he
was acquitted, the respondent-wife filed
criminal appeal in the High Court challenging
the said acquittal. During this period
respondent-wife and members of her family
have also filed complaints in the High Court
complaining about the appellant-husband so
that he would be removed from the job. The
conduct of the respondent- wife in filing a
complaint making unfounded, indecent and
defamatory allegation against her mother-in-
law, in filing revision seeking enhancement of
the sentence awarded to the appellant-husband,
in filing appeal questioning the acquittal of the
appellant-husband and acquittal of his parents
indicates that she made all attempts to ensure
that he and his parents are put in jail and he is
removed from his job. We have no manner of
doubt that this conduct has caused mental
9 FA No. 605/2017cruelty to the appellant- husband.”
14. On the basis of principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly held
that the appellant practiced cruelty with the respondent because
she did not live with the respondent after passing of decree of
restitution of conjugal rights and has prevented the respondent
from cohabitation without any sufficient cause. She lodged
criminal complaint against the family members of the respondent.
Apart from this, without any reason, she did not appear before the
trial Court.
15. Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, in our
opinion the trial Court has rightly passed the decree of divorce.
We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby appeal
dismissed.
16. Findings recorded in this judgment would not
have any prejudice on the proceeding in regard to grant of
maintenance instituted by the appellant under Section 125
of Cr.P.C.
17. No order as to cost.
(S.K.GANGELE) (SMT. ANJULI PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE
vidya
Digitally signed by SREEVIDYA
Date: 2018.05.11 12:48:51
+05’30’