HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2346 / 2017

Punam Chand S/o Magharam, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste
Kumhar, Resident of VPO Sardargarh, Tehsil Suratgarh, District
Shri Ganganagar.

—-Appellant

Versus

Smt. Parvati Devi D/o Sh. Rooparam, W/o Punam Chand, Aged
About 40 Years, By Caste Kumhar, Resident of Ward No.20, Near
Shamshan Ghat, Anoopgarh, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar.

—-Respondent

__

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Panaj Gupta.

__

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA

Judgment
17/05/2018

The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant

under Section 19 of the Family Court Act read with Section 28 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, challenging the judgment and

decree dated 06th of July, 2017 passed by learned Addl. District

Judge, Suratagarh (Family Court Judge), District Sri Ganganagar,

in Civil Misc. Case No.137/2015 (432/2014) whereby the learned

court below rejected the divorce petitioner filed by the appellant

under Section 13 (1A) (1B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act

of 1955).

(2 of 4)
[CMA-2346/2017]

As per facts of the case, the appellant preferred divorce

petition on 06.03.2014 under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 before

the learned Judge, Family Court, Sri Ganganagar but it was

thereafter transferred to the court of learned Addl. District Judge,

Suratagarh, in pursuance Notification dated 19.07.2015.

The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the the

respondent about 21 years back at Anoopgarh, and out of their

wedlock six children were born, however, unfortunately their son

died. The appellant preferred divorce petition on the ground of

cruelty being committed by the respondent/wife qua the appellant

and his family members. Although efforts were made for

settlement of the dispute between the parties, but the same did

not yield anything due to cruel attitude of the wife as she was

under the influence of her parents.

The respondent/wife preferred an application under Section

125 Cr.P.C. and also instituted criminal case for the offence u/s

498A, 406 and 323 of IPC. Thus the dispute between the parties

increased resulting into serious matrimonial dispute between

them.

The learned trial court as per pleadings of the parties framed

three issues including relief for its adjudication. In the

proceedings, opportunity to lead evidence was closed on

07.04.2017 and thereafter the respondent/wife and three

witnesses were examined. The learned trial court after hearing the

arguments finally rejected the divorce petition filed by the

appellant vide its judgment and decree dated 06.07.2017, which is

under challenge in this appeal.

(3 of 4)
[CMA-2346/2017]

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case

in which opportunity to lead evidence was closed under some

wrong statement of his advocate, therefore, in the interest of

justice while quashing this exparte decree, the matter may be

remitted to the court below for fresh adjudication.

After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we have

perused the judgment impugned dated 06.07.2017. Admittedly

the application for divorce was filed by the appellant u/s 13 (1A)

(1B) of the Act of 1955, wherein three issues were framed which

reads as under:-

” 1- vk;k vkons u i@;kfpdk dh en l[a ;k 01 ls 07 eas
of.kZrkuqlkj v;kph ds }kjk@vkons u ds lkFk fookg ds vuq’Bku
ds mijkra Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k gS
2- vk;k v;kph ds }kjk ;kfpdk nkf[ky djus ls nks o’kZ iwoZ fujUr
dkykfo/k rd ;kh ¼iwuepUn½ ifr dks vfHkR;Dr@ifjR;kx dj
j[kk gS
3- vuqrk’s k”

For the issues, it was duty of the appellant to lead evidence

but inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, no evidence was

produced by the appellant, more so, on 07.04.2017 counsel for

the appellant submitted that he is not in a position to lead

evidence although petition for divorce was pending since 2014.

The learned court below observed that no oral or documentary

evidence has been produced, thus, it cannot be presumed that the

appellant has proved its case for the grounds set out by him in the

divorce petition.

(4 of 4)
[CMA-2346/2017]

The learned court below considered the evidence of the

respondent-wife (NAW-1 Smt. Parvati), NAW-2- Sitaram and

NAW-3 Gopalram and held that the allegations levelled by the

appellant are far from the truth.

After taking into consideration the entire facts of the case

and considering the finding of the learned court below and the fact

that no evidence was led by the appellant despite granting of

several opportunities, either oral or documentary, we are of the

opinion that no interference is called for in this appeal.

Consequently, the instant misc. appeal is hereby dismissed.

(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA) J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS) J.

DJ/-

40