HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.849/2015
Smt.Savita aged about 32 years W/o Shri Pankaj Meel, D/o Shri Banwari Lal Jat, by standing – Jat,
R/o 47, Surya Nagar, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).Appellant
Pankaj Meel aged about 34 years S/o Shri Ramlal Meel R/o Shri Gulzari Lal Punia,
Plot No.170, Shiv Nagar IInd, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.).Respondent
For Appellant : Ms.Namita Parihar
For Respondent : Mr.Anshuman Saxena
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI
Judgment indifferent on : 16/05/2018
Judgment conspicuous on : 24/05/2018
BY THE COURT (Per : Hon’ble a Chief Justice)
The appellant is depressed by a visualisation antiquated 13/02/2015 extenuation direct of divorce in foster of a respondent holding that a justification brings out that both spouses committed acts of mental and earthy cruelty opposite any other.
The contribution in brief are that a respondent-husband filed Divorce Petition No.464/2011 in a justice of schooled Judge Family Court No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur seeking divorce from a appellant- mom u/S.13 of a Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on a belligerent of cruelty.
Respondent Pankaj Meel in his wail has settled that their matrimony was solemnised according to Hindu rites on [CMA-849/2015] (2 of 17) 11/07/2008. After matrimony a accepting was organized on 12/07/2008 during Plot No.47, Surya Nagar, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur. The respondent has achieved a Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree followed by a Bachelor Degree in Education, MBA, M.Phill and Ph.D. He is a Lecturer in Rajasthan Institute of Engineering and Technology in Jaipur. After marriage, kin of a appellant took a appellant with them during Baroda on 15/07/2008. On 16/08/2008 when he reached Baroda to fetch her, a appellant told him that given birth she had lived in Gujarat and her kin were staying in Baroda and she was unfortunate vital with him in Jaipur and preferred to live in Baroda. She forced him to get a pursuit in Baroda. The respondent counselled a appellant revelation her that he is a usually son and he has to demeanour after his kin in Jaipur to that a appellant retorted that she was not fervent of apropos a partial of his family. That as time upheld a opinion of a appellant incited hostile. She started regulating abuses and derisive such as job him eunuch, of low genius and that he was not innate to his parents. That she would call his mom a prostitute. On 17/08/2009 he brought a appellant to Jaipur. In Nov 2008 she quarreled with her kin and insisted to go to Gujarat. Respondent’s father sensitive a appellant’s father over a write about a appellant’s attitude, and he took a appellant to Gujarat since of some matrimony in their family. After 8 days a appellant returned to Jaipur with her parents. He reached a train mount to move a appellant and her kin to his house. On reaching a train mount appellant told respondent in annoy since he reached late. She went behind to Baroda. In Jan 2009 he reached Baroda to fetch appellant. Initially she refused though on warning came to Jaipur. On 03/08/2009 she fought with him and inflicted blemish outlines on his body. The subsequent day i.e. on 04/08/2009 Jaipal Singh, respondent’s consanguine uncle visited a house. The appellant came out of her room abusing generally and slapped respondent’s mom in kitchen. On 05/08/2009 appellant’s father accompanied by 5-6 kin came to reason a meeting. Nothing cultivatable emerged during a meeting. Due to tragedy combined by a appellant in a family, on 13/08/2009 respondent’s father suffered a heart conflict and had to be certified during Tongia Hospital, Jaipur. When he brought his father behind to a residence a appellant fought. The appellant lamented as to since his father did not die due to heart attack. On 21/11/2009 appellant’s father visited a matrimonial residence though any before intimation. He pronounced that he would be holding a appellant with him. The appellant packaged her garments in 3 suitcases. She was in a family approach during that time. The respondent asked a appellant as to since she was carrying 3 suitcases with her since as per her she was going to her parental residence for few days. He told her that a smoothness should take place in Jaipur. A masculine child was innate on 16/02/2010. Marriage of appellant’s cousin hermit was to be solemnised on 10/12/2010 during Jhunjhunu and on 09/12/2010 she told a respondent to accompany her to a matrimony though he told her that on leave being postulated he would attend a matrimony else she would have to go alone; during this, a appellant got angry and kept abusing his kin via a day. When he came to [CMA-849/2015] (4 of 17) a residence in a dusk she fought with him and pulled his hair. As his kin intervened a appellant bit his father on a thigh. On 12/01/2011, she inflicted a ‘musli’ blow on a face of his father. Ghasi Ram Poonia, a neighbour intervened and attempted to remonstrate them though to no avail. On 22/04/2011, a respondent’s family returned a dowry articles in participation of Ghasiram, Jaipal Singh, Ram Singh, Sukhveer Singh and Gulzari Poonia. On 30/05/2011 during 9-9.30 p.m. a appellant physically assaulted him and called a military and got him arrested on a same day. His medical check was finished during Kanwatia Hospital on 31/05/2011 and afterward he was postulated bail.
In a respond filed appellant Smt.Savita denied a assertions as finished in a petition. She certified holding a grade in BCA as good as in MCA and employed as a Lecturer Computer Science in NIMS University in Jaipur. She certified that son Shomanshu was innate out of their nuptials and after matrimony for some time they lived underneath a same roof i.e. during Flat No.47 as father and mom during that duration no brawl arose and hence petition for divorce was filed on concocted grounds. The whole smoothness losses was borne by her kin and conjunction her in- laws came to accommodate a child nor voiced happiness. She came to a matrimonial residence on 17/08/2008 giving honour to her in- laws and working with them in good manner. Her in-laws are un- courteous persons. Bald allegations were leveled opposite her, that she is temperament for a prolonged time to contend her married life. No ring was given on her birthday nor her in-laws swayed a respondent to do so. When she told her-laws that she was in a [CMA-849/2015] (5 of 17) family approach they got angry and flog her observant as to from whose accede she went out and whose child she has brought in their house. She should cancel a child differently they will not concede her to live in a house. She sensitive her kin and they attempted to speak to his in-laws though notwithstanding this, on 08/08/2009 her in- laws flog her by kicking on her abdomen. They called her a prostitute and told her kin to take behind their daughter with them. Thereafter, her father and other kin came to her matrimonial residence to solve a issues, though her in-laws remained adamant. They demanded income deposited in a name of a appellant in a Fixed Deposit in a bank for purchasing a prosaic melancholy that in box a direct is not fulfilled, a respondent will divorce her. Her father is intent in a business of income lending and when on 13/08/2009, her father asked one loanee to lapse 2 lacs borrowed to him, he refused to lapse a same. Resultantly, her father-in-law suffered heart attack. No medical caring was taken during a time of her pregnancy. Proper food was also not given to her. Despite censure finished by her to his parents, zero cultivatable came out. Rather, her in-laws settled that it would be improved if beforehand smoothness is finished so that neglected child might not be innate in a family and observant this, she was thrown out of a matrimonial house. Her kin afterwards took her with them to their house. On 16/02/2010 she gave birth to a masculine child. She purported that her in-laws used to provoke her about a legitimacy of a son innate to her. On 10/10/2010, a respondent and her in-laws flog her. When she asked a respondent to accompany her to a matrimony of her cousin hermit he told her [CMA-849/2015] (6 of 17) that on half day leave postulated he would accompany her though he did not take leave and did not attend a matrimony and when she asked over a phone a reason of not attending a marriage, she was subjected to beatings. Her father-in-law attempted to dedicate rape on her. He demanded a sum of20 lacs melancholy that in box direct is not over they would kill her child. On 12/01/2011 her child got severely ill though he was not brought to a sanatorium nor any income was given to her for his treatment. Rather, she was subjected to beatings by ‘musli’ by her in-laws and called a police. Police saw that her child was queasiness and rather scolded her in-laws observant that how evil persons they are and attempted to advise them to take caring of a child though to no avail. A assembly was organized during a residence of Ghasiram Poonia during a instance of her father-in-law and Tau Jaipalji, wherein it was resolved that Savita, daughter-in-law of Ramlalji will stay in Flat No.47 though her father-in-law settled that they will not concede her child to stay during a house. In such a conditions she was left with no other swap solely to leave a child during her parental residence for a day. The dowry articles were also not returned to her. When she purchased Fridge and Cooler on her possess and brought them during a matrimonial residence she was subjected to maltreatment and beating. They also flog her child aged 1½ years. Police also witnessed this incident; afterward arrested a respondent. In Mar 2009 when appellant’s father retired, her in-laws built vigour on her to move her share from her father differently they will kill her. On 23/05/2009 when appellant’s father came to Jaipur, her in-laws started perfectionist [CMA-849/2015] (7 of 17) dowry observant that a appellant is entitled to accept her share from a skill of her father. Threat was given that in box a direct is not over a appellant will be divorced and they will get a second matrimony of their son achieved so as to get a dowry of 1 crore from this second marriage. On 24/05/2009, in a participation of her father, her mother-in-law Kaushalya Devi started maltreating her. On 07/06/2009 she returned to her matrimonial residence and on a really subsequent day i.e. on 08/06/2009 when her kin were about to lapse to Baroda, a respondent abused her by regulating a word ‘prostitute’ and demanded some-more money. He demanded50,000/- on a losses incurred in a beforehand delivery. When she refused to perform a demand, her in-laws subjected her to beating. When she finished censure to her parents, they returned from Phulera to Jaipur and attempted to remonstrate her in-laws though they remained austere on a direct of dowry. On 28/06/2009 her father, Bhagirathji and Prashant Meel also came to her matrimonial residence to remonstrate her in-laws though they were angry and were told that they will divorce this prostitute. Presently she is staying during Flat No.47 along with her son, that was purchased in a name of a respondent. on 18/10/2010 a patta thereof was got returned in a name of his mom Kaushalya Devi depriving them from their hereditary skill rights. A polite fit in this courtesy has also been instituted in a efficient court, wherein an claim has also been granted. She lived with a respondent in a matrimonial residence compartment 25/06/2011. On 25/06/2011 her in-laws shifted to Flat No.121, Shiv Apartment during Vidhyadhar Nagar. On 09/07/2011 during a [CMA-849/2015] (8 of 17) indirect of her mother-in-law electricity tie of a residence wherein a appellant was vital was got disconnected. She instituted a box underneath a Domestic Violence Act. She familiar her father and hermit Ramesh vide letters antiquated 21/09/2009 and 23/09/2009; thereupon, her uncle Laxminarayan ji came to her matrimonial residence on 28/09/2009 and requested her in-laws not to betray her since she was profound and serve requested them to get her medical check adult finished though they refused to do so observant that they do not have adequate income to catch on a medical diagnosis of this prostitute. Her father-in-law told her uncle that he will flog her out. The respondent demanded 20 lacs out of1 crore perceived by her father after his retirement.
To infer his box respondent Pankaj Meel as PW-1 in his matter settled that he was married to a appellant on 11.07.2008 as per Hindu Customs during Jhunjhunu and during a nuptials a son named Somanshu was born. After matrimony a appellant went behind to Baroda. On 15.08.2008 when he went to Baroda to move her behind a appellant pronounced that she is a lettered lady and wants to live during Baroda and also attempted to convince him to live with her, whereupon he told her that his kin are really aged and he can't live during Baroda withdrawal them alone. The appellant returned with him to Jaipur. But pronounced that she does not intend to turn a member of his family. She used to argue with his kin and insisted to be sent her behind to Baroda. She oftenly used to abuse him job him eunuch and his mom to be a prostitute. In Nov a father of a appellant took her behind and 8 days afterward when he went to a home of his in-laws [CMA-849/2015] (9 of 17) she started disagreeing with him observant since he has come so late. In November, 2009 he went to Baroda on a arise of birthday of a appellant and means her a golden ring. She again asked him to live during Baroda and her father also insisted for a same, on that he declined to do so. The appellant again accompanied him to Jaipur and once again started disagreeing with him. She scratched him with her nails. She was working in such a approach usually to lapse behind to Baroda. Looking to a earnest of a emanate he called his uncle (tau) and when his uncle reached home his mom was in a kitchen creation tea where a appellant slapped her job her prostitute etc..On 05/08/2009 they called appellant’s father and her other family members. Appellant’s father again insisted on him to live with them during Baroda if he wants to live a happy life. Due to such a tensed atmosphere his father suffered heart conflict and was rushed to Tongia Hospital. After liberate from sanatorium when they came behind to home a non-applicant lamented as to since his father did not die due to heart attack. Despite all this she was vital with them. He serve settled that on 21/11/2009 appellant’s father visited their residence and requested to take his daughter behind to Baroda for 10 days, whereupon respondent pronounced that she is profound and should broach a child during Jaipur though she refused to do so and went behind to her consanguine house. She again returned behind to Jaipur on 10.10.2010 along with her father and 10-15 other persons. The appellant and her father gave violence to him and his mom and threatened to kill them. On 10.12.2010, on a arise of matrimony of her cousin, they insisted him to [CMA-849/2015] (10 of 17) accompany her whereupon he settled that he would accompany her if leave is postulated to him, differently she should go alone. When he returned to a residence in a dusk she strike him with helmet, pushed his mom and father and also bit his father on a thigh. She started disagreeing observant that she would live here usually if they send their skill in her name. On 12.01.2013, when his Fufa Ram Singh came to convince a appellant she again insisted to live alone and not with his parents. Thereafter she inflicted an damage with ‘musli’ (an iron tiny rod being used in a kitchen for abrasive a spices) on his father’s face. On 18.01.2011, their neighbor Ghasiram also came to convince her though she insisted that she would live alone in half apportionment of their residence and would not concede her father to speak to his parents. On 18.01.2011 she shifted to pronounced half apportionment of a residence along with their son. The respondent returned all dowry equipment on 22.04.2011. In a dusk of 30.05.2011 when he returned to a residence a appellant again started disagreeing and abusing him. On a seeking of her father she got him arrested. That in these resources he suffered mental cruelty and does not wish to live with a appellant. He settled that in support of his averments he also constructed a photos and medical reports on record.
In his cross-examination, PW1 settled that it is wrong to contend that non-applicant intends to live during Jaipur. It is also wrong to contend that on 03.02.2009 a argue took place between them on a emanate of FD ATM. The appellant does not intend to live with him and wants to go behind to Baroda and on comment of [CMA-849/2015] (11 of 17) this she scratched him with her nails. He denied that appellant does not intend to go Baroda forcibly. He denied a idea that there was bargain between a appellant and his mom that in a morning a appellant and in a dusk his mom would prepare a food.
Ramlal, father of a respondent as PW2 settled that in August, 2008 his son got married with a appellant. Since commencement appellant started job his son to be eunuch and his mom to be a prostitute. She oftently used to abuse them. He and his hermit always attempted to convince her though failed. On 03.08.2009 she scratched his son with nails. On 04.08.2009 when his hermit was during their home a appellant slapped his mom in a kitchen. She called her father, who came to their residence on 05.08.2009 along with 5-6 other persons. That he narrated a occurrence of 3 rd and 4th Aug to her father who certified to a shame of his daughter. Her father threatened them to send a whole family to jail. He also suffered heart conflict on 13 th Aug due to such a moving atmosphere and when he returned behind from sanatorium appellant pronounced since he did not die due to heart attack. (He has also placed on record a papers per heart conflict suffered by him). On 01.11.2009 father of a appellant came to their residence and took her behind with all personal clothes. In February, 2010 a appellant gave birth to a child in Ashoka Hospital and when he and his son went to a sanatorium to accommodate a appellant’s father demanded a income spent on her smoothness whereupon he given `20,000/- to him. In October, 2010, a appellant, her father along with 15-16 other persons came to their residence and [CMA-849/2015] (12 of 17) abused them and also pennyless a gates. They also lodged a news about this incident. In December, 2010 when a respondent returned from college she strike him with helmet and when his mom intervened a appellant gave violence to her also. When he attempted to meddle she bit him on his thigh. In January, 2011 when his sister’s father (jijaji) and his mom were sitting a appellant started abusing them and also inflicted a blow with ‘musli’ on his face that resulted in bleeding. On 18.01.2011, appellant’s father pressurised him and his son that she would live alone and also insisted on his son not to strike his parents. On 30.05.2011 appellant scratched his son with nails and finished a fake news to a military and got his son arrested. She threatened them that with a assistance of ‘Gundas’ she would chuck them out from their house. The appellant is currently vital in their house. Due to vicious poise of a appellant they have distant a son.
With honour to a interrogate of this declare we find that solely for giving suggestions as per her created statement, no critical try has been finished to disprove a declare and unnecessary to state a suggestions finished by a appellant have been denied by a witness.
Guljari Lal, a neighbour, who seemed as PW3 deposed that he resided nearby a residence of a parties. Often as he upheld by a matrimonial residence of a parties he listened appellant abusing her in-laws. He had witnessed a occurrence where appellant accompanied by 15-16 persons came to a residence where a integrate resided and abused a in-laws of a appellant. One day appellant strike her father with a helmet and when his father heard, he attempted to intervene. But refrained from doing so. During interrogate he certified that he was benefaction during some meetings hold between a parties and denied a ubiquitous suggestions finished to him.
Appearing as defence-witness appellant deposed contribution as pleaded by her in her created statement. She denied a suggestions put to her with honour to a occurrence pleaded by a respondent in a petition seeking divorce.
Appellant examined one Bhagirath Meel who is a father-in-law of a elder sister of a appellant. As per him, dowry was a solitary reason behind a brawl between a parties. As per him, after appellant’s father retirement, respondent’s family demanded some-more money. He attended several meetings to solve a emanate though failed. General suggestions finished to a declare during interrogate have been denied by him. Hanuman Singh a family crony seemed as DW3. His testimony usually brings out that he was a partial of a group that attempted to intercede though failed.
Prashant Meel a relations of a appellant seemed as PW4 and pronounced that during a time of matrimony appellant’s kin spent scarcely `30 lacs. As per him, on 03/08/2009 appellant’s father rang from Baroda requesting him to strech a appellant’s residence immediately since appellant had sensitive her father that she was being beaten. When he reached a matrimonial residence he saw that a respondent and his mom were violence a appellant. He deposed that he attended 8-10 meetings hold [CMA-849/2015] (14 of 17) towards allotment during that meetings a respondent and his father certified to their shame and positive not to repeat a behaviour. As per him, after appellant gave birth to a child her father sensitive him. He reached a hospital. Information of a birth was given to a respondent and his father. They did not revisit a hospital. That respondent and his kin used to call a appellant as a prostitute and used to lift emanate of legitimacy of a child born. At a assembly hold during Ghasi ji Punia’s residence it was motionless that a bound deposition in a name of a appellant would be given to a respondent’s father who would lapse a valuables to a appellant. The allotment was reduced in writing. Respondent’s father did not accept a coupon that was returned by Mr.Punia that it was motionless that integrate will live in a same residence by carrying a apart kitchen.
Relevant would it be to prominence that ubiquitous suggestions given to a declare in interrogate have been denied by him.
Banwari Lal, father of a appellant deposed as DW5 and deposed contribution in support of his daughter. General suggestions finished to her during interrogate have been denied by a witness.
The schooled Judge Family Court has returned a anticipating that a justification establishes both a parties indulging in mutual contention and inflicting cruelty opposite any other. In cases of a kind verbal depositions of a parties tends to be full of exaggerations. In a benefaction box no contention interrogate of any declare as means of encumber for a reason we have a basement to mass of verbal justification giving a opposition version. But we [CMA-849/2015] (15 of 17) wish to prominence certain contribution that in a opinion would bind a issue.
In para 15 of a petition seeking divorce a respondent pleaded that on 09/12/2010 when he returned home in a dusk his mom harmed his mom and when his father intervened she bit him on right thigh. Ramlal as PW2, respondent’s father has advanced this version. In support of a chronicle he has placed on record a print of his right thigh as also a medical prescription. With honour to this occurrence appellant has pleaded that on pronounced date her father-in-law attempted to rape her by stealing his pant. She managed to giveaway herself from her clutches. It is apparent that same occurrence took place on 09/12/2010 and it is formidable for a Court to trust that her father-in-law would try to rape his daughter-in-law and that too when his mom was benefaction in a house. In this connection, it would be applicable to prominence that in her examination-in-chief a appellant has not spoken a word on promise that her father-in-law attempted to rape her. This raises a finger of doubt about a exactness of her chronicle in her pleadings. It brings out a fake claim of critical inlet being finished by a appellant opposite a respondent’s father.
We find that in para 19 of a petition respondent pleaded contribution regarding to he being requisitioned in a military hire concerned in a box after he was beaten and he being arrested during a insistence of a appellant and her father. In examination-in-chief he deposed too this occurrence that took place on 30/05/2011. Arrest Memo antiquated 30/05/2011 and record instituted underneath Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. settle a same though we have a [CMA-849/2015] (16 of 17) respondent’s medical hearing news when he was examined during Kanwatiya Hospital, Jaipur on 31/05/2011 as an outside studious that shows that respondent was a plant of an assault. It also assumes significance to note that in her created matter a appellant settled that she was subjected to violence many times before 30/05/2011 though during interrogate settled that for a initial time she was beaten on 30/05/2011. It is also applicable to note that in her respond a appellant claimed dowry final when she came to her matrimonial residence in Jaipur after matrimony though in her matter on promise deposed that dowry direct was finished over write when she was in a residence of her parents. Concerning no damage suffered by her on 12/01/2011, when as per a created matter filed a appellant claimed to be harmed by ‘musli’ by her father-in-law we find that in interrogate she certified that she was not harmed by a ‘musli’ and pronounced that a reason was since she warded off a attack. This once again a movement in what a appellant pleaded and what she deposed. Pertaining to a occurrence antiquated 12/01/2011 a sketch and military news as good as a damage news antiquated 13/01/2011 uncover damage with a blunt intent given on a face of a respondent- father and tends to settle a chronicle of a respondent.
Assuming a witnesses of a appellant are to be believed, it would be a box where even a witnesses of a respondent who have been believed to be guileless witnesses would lead to a end that both parties were in mutual recremation with any other and were inflicting cruelty, both mental and earthy on any other. Though unrecoverable mangle [CMA-849/2015] (17 of 17) down of matrimony is not a belligerent for divorce though a judgments reported as 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. 307 : Madhvi Ramesh Dudani Vs. Ramesh K.Dudani, 2007(4) KHC 807 : Shrikumar Vs. Unnithan Vs. Manju K.Nair, (1994) 1 SCC 337 : V.Bhagat vs. D.Bhatgat and (2006) 4 SCC 558 : Navin Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli yield that a visualisation of cruelty has been blended by a courts with unrecoverable mangle down of marriage. The ratio of law that emerges from a pronounced decisions is that where there is justification that a father and mom indulge in mutual bickering, heading to remonstration and therefrom to a theatre where they aim any other mentally, insistence by one to keep a matrimonial bond would be a applicable cause to confirm on a emanate of cruelty, for a reason, a apparent goal of pronounced associate would be to continue with a matrimony not to suffer a tranquillity thereof though to torture and traumatize a other. The matrimony between a parties was hilly from a really beginning. Evidence brings out that rather a dual pity any other association for a happy married life, a days were spent in turbulence.
Accordingly, a interest is discharged and a impugned visualisation is affirmed.
(G R MOOLCHANDANI), J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG), CJ Anil Goyal-PS