HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2912 / 2008
Smt..Lilawati W/o Shri Shyam Lal Chitodiya, R/o 6, Gandhi
Montessori Middle School, Dhan Nadi, Bhajan Gunj, Ajmer.
—-Appellant
Versus
Shri Shyam Lal Chitodiya S/o Shri Ladu Ram Chitodiya, R/o 14/29,
Tilak Nagar, Dhola Bhata, Ajmer.
—-Respondent
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Veyankatesh Garg, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Reasham Bhargava, Adv.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Judgment
Judgment reserved on : 19th July, 2017.
Date of Judgment : 28th July, 2017.
By the Court (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ajay Rastogi):
Instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife
aggrieved by the judgment and decree dt.12.03.2008 whereby
decree of divorce was granted to the respondent-husband
dissolving their marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion
u/Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in nutshell, are
that marriage of the appellant-wife with the respondent-husband
was solemnized according to the Hindu rites customs on
14.04.1982 at Ajmer. It may be noticed that there is no issue from
this wedlock and the appellant-wife has left the matrimonial home
(2 of 11)
[CMA-2912/2008]
and they are living separately indisputably, as borne out from the
pleadings since 20.12.1989.
Prior to filing of the present Divorce Petition No.294/1999,
the respondent-husband alleged that the appellant-wife left the
matrimonial home and started living separately without any
legitimate cause/justification since 20.12.1989 but when their
differences her uncalled for behaviour could not be reconciled,
the respondent-husband filed Divorce Petition as Matrimonial Case
No.14/1990 on the ground of cruelty. Since the statutory period of
two years of separation was not completed and there was no
allegation/ground of desertion, the Divorce Petition No.14/1990
came to be dismissed on 22.11.1991. Thereafter, fresh Divorce
Petition was filed by the respondent-appellant on the ground of
cruelty and desertion as Matrimonial Case No.23/1992 and the
ld.Family Court while framing issues, framed Issue No.3 with
regard to res-judicata, on the objection being raised by the
appellant-wife in her written statement and while accepting the
plea of res-judicata, dismissed the Matrimonial Case No.23/1992
vide its order dt.12.07.1995 against which no further recourse
was adopted by the respondent-husband.
Thereafter, the respondent-husband moved a fresh Divorce
Petition No.294/1999 on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
Again an application was moved by the appellant-wife u/Sec.11
CPC seeking dismissal of the matrimonial case on the ground of
res-judicata. Accepting the plea of res-judicata, the Matrimonial
Case No.294/1999 came to be dismissed by the ld.Family Court
vide its order dt.06.02.2001 and that came to be challenged by
(3 of 11)
[CMA-2912/2008]
the respondent-husband before this Court in D.B.Civil Misc. Appeal
No.442/2001 which was allowed by this court vide order
dt.05.02.2007 and the parties were directed to appear before the
ld.Family Court and after the parties recorded their attendance in
compliance of judgment of this Court dt.06.02.2001, the
appellant-wife failed to appear before the ld.Family Court, Ajmer
on five consecutive dates and, as such, ex-parte proceedings were
initiated against the appellant-wife and vide ex-parte judgment
and decree, the Divorce Petition was allowed vide order
dt.10.05.2007.
That against the ex-parte judgment and decree of divorce to
the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife on 08.06.2007 moved
application u/O.9 R.13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte
judgment and decree dt.10.05.2007 which was allowed on
28.01.2008 and the Matrimonial Case No.294/1999 was restored
to its original number.
During the course of proceedings, the respondent-husband
recorded the statement of his own and Ramesh Chand (his cousin
brother) as AW-1 and AW-2 respectively. At the same time, the
appellant-wife got herself examined along with Jeevan Ram and
Nandkishore, who happens to be her neighbours as NAW-1, NAW-
2 and NAW-3 respectively.
The ld.Family Court on the pleadings of the parties, in all
framed four issues for determination, which read ad infra:-
“1 vk;k vizkFkhZ;k us izkFkhZ dk nks o”kZ ls vf/kd vof/k ls
fcuk fdlh ;qfDr ;qDr dkj.k ds ifjR;kx dj j[kk gS
2 vk;k vizkFkhZ;k dk O;ogkj izkFkhZ ds lkFk ;kfpdk esa
of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij dzwjrkiw.kZ jgk gSA
(4 of 11)
[CMA-2912/2008]3 vk;k tokcnkos esa vafdrkuqlkj izkFkhZ ds ehjk uke dh
efgyk ls lEcU/k gS vkSj mls vius lkFk crkSj iRuh j[ks gq, gS]
;fn ,slk gS rks mldk ;kfpdk ij izHkko
4 vk;k izkFkhZ vizkFkhZ;k ds fo:} fookg foPNsn dh fMØh
ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS
5 vuqrks”k |”
It was pleaded by the respondent-husband in his Matrimonial
Application that after their marriage was solemnized according to
the Hindu rites customs on 14.04.1982 apart from the fact that
there is no child from this wedlock the appellant-wife left the
matrimonial home on 20.12.1989 and thereafter never turned up
upto the date of filing of the application and he tried his level best
to provide all medical care and treatment of one of the best
Gynecologist but in fact she failed to discharge matrimonial
relations for a sufficient long time and has deserted him for more
than two years on the date of filing of the divorce petition.
It was further stated that a false criminal complaint was
instituted against him u/Sec.494 IPC that he has remarried to
another woman named Meera and residing with him which was
factually incorrect and it was just to defame him in the society,
which after the regular trial found to be false and he was acquitted
by the ld.Trial Judge and in this regard, the appellant-wife in her
written statement in para-7 has stated that the respondent-
husband is residing with another woman named Meera as his wife
and a criminal case has been instituted at her instance for the
offence u/Sec.494 IPC before the competent court of jurisdiction
and further stated in para-11 of the written statement that
although she has left the matrimonial home on 20.12.1989 but
(5 of 11)
[CMA-2912/2008]
reason was the demand of dowry from the respondent-husband of
Rs.10,000/- which she and her family members are unable to
fulfill.
On the statement which was recorded before the ld.Family
Court, the appellant-wife in her cross-examination as NAW-1
admitted that she has instituted a case for demand of dowry and
for solemnizing second marriage by the respondent-husband
u/Sec.494 IPC, although, later on he was acquitted by the
competent court of jurisdiction for the reason that the respondent-
husband has threatened her witnesses.
Taking note of the statement of witnesses recorded by the
parties in support of their case and the material which has come
on record, the ld.Family Court decided all the issues in favour of
the respondent-husband upholding that the appellant-wife has
deserted the respondent-husband without any reason/justification
from 20.12.1989 and instituted a false complaint against him
u/Sec.494 IPC in which there was an order of acquittal by the
competent court of jurisdiction and so also the fact that there was
no demand of dowry of Rs.10,000/- as being pleaded by the
appellant-wife in her statement as NAW-1 and finally granted
decree of divorce to the respondent-husband vide judgment
decree impugned dt.12.03.2008 and accordingly their marriage
solemnized as per Hindu rites customs on 14.04.1982 was
dissolved.
Counsel for the appellant-wife submits that although it could
not be proved by her that the respondent-husband is residing with
another lady named Meera but the fact is that she is residing as
(6 of 11)
[CMA-2912/2008]
his wife and because of her witnesses being threatened by the
respondent-husband the charge could not be proved and further
deposed that the respondent demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as
dowry from her but merely because she is unable to prove, that in
itself could not be considered to be a mental cruelty being
committed by her in granting decree of divorce under the
judgment decree impugned dt.12.03.2008.
Counsel further submits that as regard leaving matrimonial
home on 20.12.1989 is concerned, although this fact is not
disputed that she is residing separately since 20.12.1989 but it
was only under the compelling circumstances that she left the
matrimonial home and reason behind is demand of dowry and the
respondent-husband is residing with another lady named Meera
and the solitary reason could not be considered the cause of
cruelty and the finding recorded by the ld.Family Courft on issue
Nos.1, 2 3 is totally perverse and the judgment and decree
impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-husband
refuted the submissions made by counsel for the appellant-wife
and contended that the respondent-husband has been able to
prove various acts of cruelty being practiced by the appellant-wife
and sufficient evidence was brought on record with incriminating
proofs that act of the appellant-wife has caused mental cruelty to
the respondent-husband and she has leveled false baseless
allegations of dowry demand and staying with another lady named
Meera and in absence of any tangible evidence, in rebuttal, the
respondent-husband has been victimized and his image has been
(7 of 11)
[CMA-2912/2008]
tarnished in the society and on the other hand, there is sufficient
evidence on record regarding her desertion and also of mental
cruelty which she committed on the respondent-husband which
has been considered by the ld.Family Court under the judgment
decree impugned dt.12.03.2008 which needs no further
interference by this Court.
We have heard counsel for the parties and with their
assistance carefully examined the material on record.
The relevant provision of Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 reads ad infra:-
“13. Divorce – (1) Any marriage solemnized, whether
before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on
a petition presented by either the husband or the wife,
be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that
the other party –
(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage,
treated the petitioner with cruelty; or(ib) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period
of not less than two years immediately preceding the
presentation of the petition; or ………”
It is true that ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in the Act but is
a relative term. It varies from person to person and there cannot
be laid down any straight jacket formula and each case has to be
examined on its own facts. The allegation and conduct of one
particular case may not amount to cruelty in all the cases. It
depends upon various factors which includes the status of the
spouses and the atmosphere in which they live. Cruelty implies
and means harsh conduct and of such intensity and persistence,
which would make it impossible for the spouse to operate the
marriage. Although the cruelty may not defined in the Act, but it is
(8 of 11)
[CMA-2912/2008]
to be determined on the basis of proved facts and circumstances
of the case.
It is indeed true that marriage is a sacred relationship
between husband and the wife. In a traditional society like ours,
when a boy marries a girl, he not only brings a wife to his home
but also beings a daughter-in-law for the family. Thus, the
behavior of a woman has to be seen both as a wife and as a
daughter-in-law.
The respondent-husband in his application specifically stated
that the appellant-wife has instituted a false criminal case against
him u/Sec.494 IPC with the allegation that he is residing with
another woman Meera having illicit relations with her which is
without any factual basis and foundation and so also the fact that
she left her matrimonial home since 20.12.1989 and deserted him
without any valid cause and this was admitted by the appellant-
wife in para Nos.7 11 of her written statement. It would
appropriate to quote the relevant para Nos.7 11 of the written
statement filed by the appellant-wife, which read ad infra:-
“7 ;g fd izkFkZuk i dh pj.k la[;k7 ¼ lkr½ xyr gksus
ds dkj.k vLohdkj gSA tSlk fd Åij Hkh of.kZr fd;k tk pqdk
gS fd izkFkhZ fdlh Hkh rjg ls vizkFkhZ;k ls rykd pkgrk gS
rFkk ehjk uked efgyk dks og vius lkFk crkSj iRuh j[ks gq,s
gSA bl rjg ls izkFkhZ Loa; LoPN gkFkksa ls ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds
le{k ugha vk;k gSA
11 ;g fd izkFkZuk i dh pj.k la[;k 11 ¼ X;kjg½ xyr
gksus ds dkj.k vLohdkj gSA tSlk fd Åij Hkh fuosnu fd;k
tk pqdk gSA fd vizkFkhZ;k viuh bPNk ls vius ihgj esa ugha
jg jgh gS oju~ fnukad 20-12-1989 ¼ chl fnlEcj lu~ mUUkhl
lkS uokalh½ dks izkFkhZ o mlds ?kj okyksa us vizkFkhZ;k ds lkFk
ekjihV dj ?kj ls fudky fn;k gSA vizkFkhZ;k ds firk dk Hkh
nsgkUr gks pqdk gS rFkk vizkFkhZ;k viuh o`} ekrk ds lkFk jg
jgh gSA vizkFkhZ;k ds firk o lekt ds yksxksa us izkFkhZ o
(9 of 11)
[CMA-2912/2008]mlds ?kj okyksa dks dbZ ckj lek;k fd og vizkFkhZ;k dks
vius lkFk j[ks rFkk mls vuqfpr ekWx dks ysdj viekfur o
izrkfM+r ugha djs ijUrq izkFkhZ o mlds ?kj okyksa us Li”V :i
ls dgk fd tc rd ekWx iwjh ugha gks tkrh rc rd vizkFkhZ;k
dks ?kj esa ?kqlus ugha nsaxsA vizkFkhZ;k vkt Hkh izkFkhZ ds lkFk
jgus dks rS;kj gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ us gh vizkFkhZ;k dk R;kx
dj j[kk gSA”
During course of evidence recorded in support of the
respective allegation of the appellant-wife during cross-
examination as NAW-1, being relevant for the present purpose, is
quoted ad infra:-
“;g lgh gS fd eSusa izkFkhZ ij ngst ekaxus o nwljh ‘kknh djus
dk eqdnek fd;k Fkk mlesa izkFkhZ cjh gks x;k ysfdu blus esjs
xokgksa dks /kedk;k blfy, cjh gqvk gS mlds ehjk ds
lkFk uktk;t laca/k gSa ;g xyr gS fd eSaus blds
foHkkx esa Hkh waBh f’kdk;rsa djds bldh csbTtrh dh gks vfirq
eSaus lgh f’kdk;r dh gSa A”
No tangible evidence has come on record in support of both
the allegations about demand of dowry and that the respondent-
husband is residing with another woman Meera. On the contrary,
after a regular trial, the respondent-husband was acquitted by the
competent court of jurisdiction of the case instituted against him
u/Sec.494 IPC at her instance and it was observed to be a false
case instituted against him. As regards desertion is concerned, she
has left her matrimonial home since 20.12.1989 and the
explanation which was tendered/furnished by the appellant-wife
was not acceptable even to the man of ordinary prudence and no
evidence has come on record in rebuttal which could support the
justification tendered by her.
Thus, the stand establishes from the material on record that
false and baseless allegations were levelled against the
respondent-husband by the appellant-wife of demand of dowry
(10 of 11)
[CMA-2912/2008]
and residing with another woman named Meera and no tangible
evidence has come on record in rebuttal which could defend the
case of the appellant-wife.
The ld.Family Court has found as a fact that the allegations
levelled against the respondent-husband implicating him in a case
instituted u/Sec.494 IPC and of demanding dowry are totally false
and baseless which the appellant-wife has failed to prove against
the respondent-husband and that established to mental cruelty on
part of the appellant-wife and that has certainly made the
respondent-husband entitled to a decree of divorce on this ground
alone.
That apart litigation is going on between the parties since
1990 and even from the material which has come on record
admitted by the appellant-wife, they are living separately since
20.12.1989 and almost 28 years have rolled by now. Otherwise
also it is breakdown of their marriage and there is sufficient
material available on record to cause mental agony to the
respondent-husband. Making wild and false allegations against
character of the respondent-husband is nothing but an attempt to
tarnish his image in the society which amounts to mental cruelty
and this what has been considered by the ld.Family Court while
granting decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband so
as to make out a case of cruelty practiced by the appellant-wife.
The evidence of respondent-husband appears to be reliable
whereas the testimony of the appellant-wife is against her
averments in reply which certainly not only belies her testimony
but also renders her unworthy of trust. It also indicates that she
(11 of 11)
[CMA-2912/2008]
has perjured herself and has indulged in blatant lies. The ld.Family
Court has given cogent and valid reasons for relying upon the
evidence of the respondent-husband while deciding issue Nos.1, 2
3 in favour of the respondent-husband. We have no hesitation to
hold that act of the appellant-wife did constitute an act of cruelty
to the respondent-husband and the finding of fact recorded by the
ld.Family Court, in our considered view, thus liable to be sustained
and does not call for interference.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the finding recorded by
the ld.Family Court being based on proper and legal appreciation
of the evidence on record, deserves to be upheld and affirmed and
to hold that the decree of divorce granted by the ld.Family Court
impugned dt.12.03.2008 deserves to be sustained and does not
call for any interference by this Court and the instant misc. appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
Consequently, the instant misc. appeal being devoid of merit
and substance is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J.
Solanki DS, PS