HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1668/2017
Dinesh Jetwani S/o Late Shri Jairamdas Jetwani, By Caste
Sindhi, R/o Opposite Rajesh Talkiz, Bazar No.3, Ramganjmandi,
District Kota.
—-Appellant
Versus
Smt. Jyoti Jetwani W/o Dinesh Jetwani D/o Nandlal Bhagwani, By
Caste Sindhi, R/o 61, Shopping Center, Kota.
—-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Smt. Archana Mantri
For Respondent(s) : Shri Manish Kumar Saini on behalf of
Dr. Mahesh Sharma
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
20/01/2020
BY THE COURT : (PER HON’BLE DHADDHA,J.)
This appeal has been preferred by appellant Dinesh
Jethwani against the order of the learned Family Court No.2, Kota
(Raj.) passed on 20.01.2017 whereby the learned Family Court
rejected the Hindu Matrimonial Case No.122/2016 filed u/s 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”).
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the
marriage of the appellant was solemnized with respondent on
21.11.1996 as per Hindu rites and customs at Porwala
Dharmshala Ramganjmandi, District Kota. The respondent wife
changed her behaviour after one year and used to quarrel with the
appellant on petty matters. She used to go to her parental house
without any information and did not inform her husband even
after 2-3 days. She used to spend all her day lying on bed. Due
(Downloaded on 27/01/2020 at 09:47:58 PM)
(2 of 5) [CMA-1668/2017]
to this, the appellant remained under stress. As the children were
growing up, the demands of the respondent and her stubborn
behaviour, started increasing and also she learnt black magic from
her mother and used it on the appellant as well as children. Some
times, the respondent also used to beat the appellant very cruelly.
The respondent also used to pressurize the appellant that if he
would not surrender the documents of the house situated in Balaji
Nagar, Kota, she would leave the appellant’s house and would go
to her parental house. On 26.05.2012, the respondent, in the
absence of the appellant and without his permission, left the
house and went to her parental house along with the children.
The respondent had deprived the appellant of marital happiness.
Inspite of all this, the appellant had gone to the respondent’s
parental house to bring her back but the respondent had clearly
declined to accompany him. The respondent insulted the
appellant physically as well as mentally by fling false case against
him. Therefore, the appellant’s application be accepted and
decree for dissolution of marriage be passed.
In reply, the respondent had denied the allegations
levelled by the appellant and stated that the respondent never
went to her parental house of her own will. The appellant
demanded dowry and tortured the respondent both mentally and
physically and threw the respondent and the kids out of the
house. The appellant always looked at the respondent with doubt.
The appellant was not paying the interim maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- that was decided by the Family Court. Inspite of the
appellant’s daughter suffering from a disease in her neck, the
appellant did not get her treated and used to beat her. The
respondent had never denied from staying with the appellant but
(Downloaded on 27/01/2020 at 09:47:58 PM)
(3 of 5) [CMA-1668/2017]
the appellant himself never came to take the respondent and the
children. The appellant, on account of his ill behaviour and evil
intention wanted to leave the respondent, which was not justified.
Therefore, on the basis of aforementioned reasons, the application
was required to be dismissed.
From the pleadings, the learned Family Court framed
issues :
“(1) Whether the behaviour of respondent wife
with appellant was cruel ?
(2) Whether the respondent – wife had without any
reasonable cause, deserted the petitioner husband
continuously for more than two years ?(3) Whether the appellant was entitled to get
decree of divorce from the respondent?(3) Relief ?”
The appellant examined himself as AW-1, Madan Lal –
AW-2 and Rajendra Kumar as AW-3 and exhibited 5 documents in
his support.
The respondent examined herself as NAW-1,
Sambhawana- NAW-2 and Nandlal – NAW-3 and exhibited 8
documents in her support.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
learned Family Court decided all the Issues in favour of the
respondent and against the appellant and rejected the divorce
petition filed by the appellant husband.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment and decree dated 20.01.2017 are ex-facie
illegal, arbitrary and bad in the eye of law. She submitted that the
learned Family Court had committed an error in not considering
the fact that after marriage, initially for 15 years, both of them
(Downloaded on 27/01/2020 at 09:47:58 PM)
(4 of 5) [CMA-1668/2017]
had been enjoying and obeying their matrimonial obligations. She
submitted that in case the appellant husband was cruel, the
respondent wife would have left the matrimonial house.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted
that the respondent wife had become cruel towards the appellant
as it was clear from the FIR which was lodged by the respondent
wife for offence punishable u/s 498-A and 406 IPC and after
investigation, police submitted final negative report. She
submitted that the learned Family Court had not considered the
fact that the appellant was fulfilling his duties / obligations
towards his wife and children. She submitted that the appellant
had imparted good education to his children by admitting them in
a reputed school of Kota by paying necessary fees.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted
that the learned Family Court had committed an error in not
considering the fact that daughter of the appellant was suffering
from neck disease as she was examined by the specialist of the
Kota and all expenses were incurred by the appellant. Therefore
the appeal be allowed and marriage of the parties be dissolved.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
learned Family Court had passed the order in its right perspective
and had not committed any error. Therefore, the appeal be
dismissed.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the
impugned order and the material available on record.
Learned trial court while deciding the issue regarding
cruelty against the appellant observed that the appellant husband
had not uttered single word in this regard while appearing in the
(Downloaded on 27/01/2020 at 09:47:58 PM)
(5 of 5) [CMA-1668/2017]
witness box. The appellant in his statement stated that behaviour
of his wife towards him, was good. Witnesses – Madan Lal and
Rajendra, in their statement stated that the relations between the
parties were cordial. The respondent in her statement clearly
stated that the appellant used to beat her after consuming liquor.
He had tried to burn her. He also used to bully his children.
Appellant’s daughter Sambhawna in her statement clearly stated
that the appellant used to beat her mother after consuming liquor.
Respondent’s father Nandlal also stated that his daughter was
beaten by the appellant and he had not taken care of his daughter.
Learned trial Court in its order clearly observed that the
appellant tried to burn the respondent and he did not want the
children to study and he had thrown out respondent from his
house and after that, she was residing separately. Therefore, the
learned trial court had not committed any error in deciding both
the issues against the appellant.
41 We are of the considered opinion that the learned
Family Court had not committed any error in dismissing the
divorce petition filed by the appellant. Therefore, we are
persuaded to reject the appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (SABINA),J
RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN /17/M47
(Downloaded on 27/01/2020 at 09:47:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
