HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3485 / 2006
Meena Agarwal @ Pallavi Goyal W/o Shri Pradeep Goyal, D/o Shri
Ramgopal Agarwal Advocate, R/o Bhagirath Bhawan, Bad Pipal Ka
Ped, Oswali Mohalla, Kishangarh Madanganj, Ajmer.
—-Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Goyal S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Goyal, R/o B-43,
Shakti Nagar, Tonk Road, at present residing at 12 Gordhan Nagar,
New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.
—-Respondent
DB CIVIL MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19 OF
THE FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 19.9.2006
PASSED BY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AJMER IN
MATRIMONIAL CASE No.117/2006.
__
For Appellant : Mr. R. P. Garg with
Mr. Ravi Kasliwal.
For Respondent : Mr. Lokesh Sharma with
Mr. Rajendra Vaish.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
JUDGMENT
08/08/2017
(PER HON’BLE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI J.)
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife
under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the judgment
and decree dated 19.9.2006 passed by Judge, Family Court, Ajmer
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Family Court’) in Matrimonial Case
(2 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
No.117/2006, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-
husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking
divorce, was allowed.
Skeletal material facts necessary for the disposal of the
appeal are that the respondent-husband has filed petition under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘Act’) for seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty with the
averment that marriage between the appellant and the respondent
was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs on
3.12.1997 at Jaipur. Thereafter, the appellant-wife was living with
the respondent-husband and his parents at B-39, Triveni Nagar,
Jaipur. After marriage, the respondent-husband came to know that
the appellant-wife is suffering from mental derangement and thus,
the appellant used to cry and misbehave with her in-laws on very
small things. The appellant is under influence of her parents. She
used to shout, abuse, leave no occasion for quarrel and being
aggressive. These were a recurring and continuous behavior by
appellant-wife Meena with all members. It shows that the
appellant-wife is suffering from mental disorder. The appellant-
wife always reiterated that she is an educated woman and her
father-Shri Ramgopalji and brother-Shri Mahesh are Advocates in
Kishangarh and gave threats to respondent-husband to send him
and his parents to Jail in a false case.
The respondent-husband also pleaded that the appellant-wife
quarreled with the respondent-husband on petty matters and she
used filthy language and gave threats to commit suicide also.
When the respondent-husband complained to her parents with
(3 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
regard to her behavior, they simply said that the appellant is not
at fault and the respondent-husband and his parents have to
adjust.
It is also pleaded that from their wedlock a male child Rajat
was born on 7.11.1999, then too the behavior of the appellant did
not change. On 5.12.1999, the respondent-husband organised
function and Pooja i.e. ‘Jalwa Pujan’ at Jaipur and a number of
relatives, friends and neighbours including parents of the appellant
were invited. In this public function, the appellant-Meena and her
parents raised voice, quarreled, demanded the only house of Shri
S. C. Goyal in favour of appellant-Meena and when the respondent
refused to do so, they insulted, shouted and created chaos
publicly and the function was disturbed and the image of the
respondent’s family was tarnished in front of all friends, relatives
and neighbours.
It is also averred that the respondent-husband has three
married sisters-Smt. Anita, Smt. Rashmi and Smt. Neelima and
they are living at their matrimonial home, but whenever they
come at respondent-husband’s home to celebrate festival etc., the
appellant-wife always quarrelled and misbehaved with them, even
went to their matrimonial home and used filthy language.
It is also averred that in the month of June, 2000, the
appellant-wife after quarreling with her parents-in-law and without
taking permission from them, left her matrimonial home and
shifted to her maternal home at Kishangarh. The respondent-
husband, his father and his other relatives went to Kishangarh and
talked with her parents and also told them about the behavior of
(4 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
the appellant-wife with them. The parents of the appellant-wife
felt sorry for the behavior of the appellant and assured them that
she would not repeat the same. On being assured, the
respondent’s father and his relatives took the appellant to her
matrimonial home i.e. Jaipur on 5.8.2000, but later the appellant-
wife repeated the same behavior with the respondent-husband
and his parents.
It is further averred that looking at the continuous quarrel,
shouting and ill behavior of the appellant-wife, the parents of
respondent-husband suggested him to live separately with the
appellant. They shifted to a rented premises on 12.9.2000, but
even then things did not improve and she was more aggressive
and also started doing ‘Marpeet’ with the respondent-husband.
The appellant-wife also gave beatings to her one year old child
brutally, which shows her mental disorder. It is further pleaded
that she also went to the house of her in-laws on and off and used
to quarrel with parents of the respondent unnecessarily.
It is also averred that being harassed with this regular
quarrel, the parents of the respondent-husband issued public
notice in the local newspaper on 15.10.2000 for depriving from his
property. When the parents of the appellant-wife came to know
about this advertisement, they went to the matrimonial house of
the appellant and quarreled with her parents-in-law and they also
came to the house of the respondent and gave threats and gave
beating to him. On 16.10.2000, the appellant-wife telephoned
sister of the respondent and abused her and thereafter
on 19.12.2000, she went to house of elder sister of the
(5 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
respondent and abused and misbehaved with her.
It is further pleaded that on 19.12.2000 itself, the parents
and brother of the appellant came to respondent’s house and after
abusing and misbehaving with him and his parents, she left the
house of the respondent and went to her parents’ house without
his permission and also took away her dowry articles. It is also
averred that the conduct of the appellant-wife ruined goodwill of
the respondent in the society and the same is unbearable for him.
It was prayed in the petition that this conduct of the appellant
amounts to mental cruelty and the decree for dissolution of
marriage may be granted.
The appellant filed her written statement. In the written
statement the appellant denied the allegations levelled by the
respondent-husband with regard to the cruelty in his divorce
petition. It has been stated by the appellant-wife in her written
statement that soon after engagement, parents of the respondent
raised their demand and asked the father of the appellant to
spend 7 to 8 lacs in the marriage. Father of the appellant was not
in a position to spend such a huge amount, still he spent 4 lac
rupees in the marriage. As such from the day of marriage,
mother-in-law and sisters-in-law started to harass the appellant.
The respondent was the only son, still they have been given room
in basement, whereas house of the parents of the respondent is
double storeyed. When harassment of her in-laws still continued,
then both of them decided to live separately. It has been further
stated that appellant got pregnant and she has been forced by her
mother-in-law and sisters-in-law for sonography test to find out
(6 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
the sex of the child and when in the sonography test it was found
that in the womb it was female child, then her sister-in-law, who
is a doctor, aborted the appellant.
It has also been stated that she never demanded any
property and she never misbehaved with her in-laws and she
never insulted or disrespected her in-laws and does not want
divorce from the respondent. The allegations levelled in the
divorce petition against the appellant with regard to suicide, using
filthy language, demand of property, beating her son and mental
derangement were totally false and baseless. It has also been
stated that husband of sister-in-law of the appellant tried to
outrage her modesty and when she made complaint about it to
her husband and his parents, they gave beatings to her and threw
her out of the house. The dowry articles are in possession of her
in-laws. Lastly, it has been stated that the said divorce petition
has been filed at the instigation of respondent’s parents and
sisters, as such the same should be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Family Court
framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the non-petitioner has treated the petitioner with
cruelty so as to entitle the petitioner for decree of
divorce ?
(2) Whether this Court or only the Court at Ajmer has
jurisdiction to decide the petition ?
(3) Whether the petition is barred by limitation ?
(4) Relief ?
(7 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]In support of the petition, the respondent-husband examined
as many as 8 witnesses. In defence, the appellant-wife examined
as many as 7 witnesses.
The learned Family Court after evaluating and appreciating
the evidence available on record and after hearing both the parties
arrived at a conclusion that the respondent-husband has been
able to prove that he was treated by the appellant with cruelty,
therefore, the petition filed on behalf of respondent was allowed
and it was ordered that the marriage between the parties be
dissolved vide impugned judgment dated 19.9.2006.
The appellant-wife felt aggrieved with the aforesaid
judgment dated 19.9.2006 and filed the present appeal.
Mr. R. P. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant-wife
submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court has committed
grave error of law while passing the impugned judgment, as the
respondent could not prove cruelty by the appellant from his
evidence, on the contrary, cruelty by the respondent is established
from the evidence on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that no
medical evidence has been placed on record to prove that the
appellant is suffering from mental disorder. Learned counsel also
submitted that the learned Judge, Family Court did not appreciate
the evidence of the appellant in right manner while deciding the
divorce petition. Learned counsel further submitted that the
programme of ‘Jalwa Pujan’ organised by the respondent was
celebrated in a very happy atmosphere and the statements of
(8 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
witnesses of the respondent are contrary to each other on such
aspect and, therefore, the allegations levelled by the respondent
in the divorce petition are totally false.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that it is
not disputed that husband of the appellant is the only son and he
is successor of the property and, therefore, it cannot be believed
that appellant raised such type of unreasonable demand. Learned
counsel also contended that due to demand of dowry, the
appellant was tortured and harrassed by her parents-in-law and
sisters-in-law despite of the fact that the appellant did all house-
hold work and paid respect to her in-laws.
Learned counsel also contended that it would be unfair to the
appellant-wife to conclude that she had exhibited such cruelty
towards the respondent-husband and her in-laws that would
justify the dissolution of her marriage. The allegations levelled in
the petition are totally false, which has been made only to harass
the appellant and members of her maternal family to create
pressure on her to take divorce from the respondent. Learned
counsel has vehemently contended that it is not possible to label
the wife’s allegations detailed above as a false or a vindictive
action.
Per contra, Mr. Lokesh Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent-husband controverting the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant-wife and reiterating the submissions made
in the petition raised the grounds that there was a twinfold police
enquiry one by the regular police station and other by the CID
(CB), by the Officer of Dy. S.P. rank and it is revealed that all the
(9 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
complaints were found false and incorrect and had been consigned
to record. Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that
appellant-Smt. Meena in her cross-examination had categorically
admitted the complaint and its fate and had further stated that
she had made two or three more complaints after 21.12.2000 and
as such false complaints of the appellant are sufficient to show
cruelty against the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent also contended that from
the evidence collected and material made available on record,
learned Family Court has found the allegations made by the
respondent prima-faice found to be true and took note that the
behavior of the appellant regarding raising allegations,
threatening, creating chaos, quarrelling, shouting publicly and
creating tension to be made out.
We have considered the submissions made on behalf of
learned counsel for the respective parties, gone through the
record made available to us and relevant legal provisions.
The learned Family Court observed that the Issue No.2 has
become redundant, as the petition has been transferred from
Jaipur to Ajmer Court by order of the High Court. Learned Family
Court has decided Issue No.3 against the appellant holding that
the petition has been filed within limitation. Learned Family Court
has decided the Issue No.1 in favour of the respondent-husband
and against the appellant-wife and allowed the respondent’s
petition for dissolution of the marriage.
(10 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
Learned counsel for the appellant did not make any
submission with regard to Issue No.3 regarding limitation.
In substance, the respondent-husband in his petition for
divorce, has pleaded certain instances, which according to him,
constituted “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 13 (1) (i-a) of
the Act entitling him to claim dissolution of marriage against the
appellant.
The first limb of cruelty alleged by the respondent is that
after marriage, the respondent came to know that the appellant is
suffering from mental derangement and thus, she used to cry and
misbehave with her in-laws on very petty matters. During
arguments, learned counsel for the respondent did not make any
submissions on this ground. The learned Family Court has
observed that the appellant is attending the Court regularly, she is
highly educated and is mentally sound. She understands the
things very well and nothing was observed to indicate that the
appellant is suffering from mental derangement and mentioned
this fact in the impugned judgment also.
The second ground of cruelty is that the parents, brother and
sisters of the appellant used to provoke the appellant against the
respondent and the appellant is under influence of her parents.
The appellant denied the allegations and stated that members of
her maternal family used to come on festivals only for courtesy
visits and they never provoked her against the respondent and/or
his family members. This ground of cruelty is general in nature
with no details. In this respect, the respondent-husband did not
(11 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
examine any independent witness to substantiate the allegation.
The witnesses examined by the respondent are AW.1-Pradeep
Kumar (respondent himself), AW.5-Suresh Chandra (his father),
AW.6-Smt. Shyamlata (his mother), AW.7-Dr. Dinesh Agarwal [his
brother-in-law (Bahnoi)] and AW.8-Smt. Anita Agarwal (his sister),
who are interested witnesses. AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay and AW.3-
Hemchandra Gupta are neighbours of the respondent, and AW.4-
Neeraj Soni is friend of the respondent, who gave no evidence in
this regard.
The third ground of cruelty alleged by the respondent is that
the appellant used to shout, abuse and leave no occasion to
quarrel and became aggressive with the respondent and his family
members. The appellant-wife quarreled with the respondent-
husband on petty matters and used filthy language. The appellant-
wife denied all these allegations. The allegations are general in
nature with no details. Though AW.5-Suresh Chandra and AW.6-
Shyam Lata, father and mother of the respondent corroborated
the statement of the respondent, but AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay and
AW.3-Hemchandra Gupta, who are neighbours of the respondent
gave no evidence to substantiate the allegation. Another witness
AW.4-Neeraj Soni, who is friend of the respondent and used to
remain with the respondent and the appellant, also gave no
evidence to substantiate the allegations levelled by the
respondent.
The fourth ground of cruelty is again about the appellant’s
behavior with the respondent. The respondent has alleged that at
several times in aggression, the appellant had beaten the
(12 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
respondent and such type of her behavior was recurring and
continuous. The appellant denied the allegations. The respondent
produced no evidence in support of the allegation.
The fifth ground of cruelty alleged by the respondent is that
whenever she was advised to speak gently and quietly, then she
came out of the house and shouted, gathered persons on the
street and used to scandalize the respondent and his family
members. AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay and AW.3-Hemchandra Gupta,
who are neighbours of the respondent, spoke nothing to
substantiate the allegation levelled by the respondent. AW.4-
Neeraj Soni, who is friend of the respondent, is also silent about
this allegation. The allegations are general in nature with no
details and without any corroboration by any independent witness.
The sixth ground of cruelty is that the appellant-wife used to
go to her parents’ house without seeking permission of the
respondent and his parents, which is denied by the appellant-wife.
This allegation is also of a general nature, with no details except
the instance of June, 2000.
The seventh ground of cruelty is that after the birth of son
Rajat from the wedlock, the respondent-husband organized
function i.e. ‘Jalwa Pujan’ on 5.12.1999 at Jaipur and good
number of relatives, friends and neighbours were invited. In this
function, the appellant and her parents raised voice, quarreled and
demanded to transfer the only house of father of the respondent
in favour of the appellant and when the respondent refused to do
so, they insulted, shouted and created chaos publicly and
(13 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
disturbed the function, which tarnished their image in front of all
friends, relatives and neighbours.
The appellant denied the allegation and pleaded that the
function of ‘Jalwa Pujan’ was performed peacefully and in happy
atmosphere. It is an admitted fact that many relatives, friends and
neighbours including parents of the appellant were invited in the
function and parents of the appellant also attended the same. In
support of the allegation, the respondent examined himself, his
father-Suresh Chandra (AW.5), his mother Smt. Shyamlata
(AW.6), his brother-in-law Dr. Dinesh Agarwal (AW.7) and his
sister Smt. Anita Agarwal (AW.8), who are interested witnesses. In
addition to above, respondent examined AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay
and AW.3-Hemchandra Gupta, who are neighbours and AW.4-
Neeraj Soni, is friend of the respondent. AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay
resides 3-4 houses away from the respondent. This witness did
not depose with regard to the alleged incident. AW.3-Hemchandra
Gupta, is also a neighbour of the respondent, who spoke nothing
in the examination-in-chief about the alleged incident, but in
cross-examination, the witness stated that he alongwith his family
members attended the function of ‘Jalwa Pujan’ organized by the
respondent and returned happily. He heard nothing about any
dispute at the function. AW.4-Neeraj Soni deposed that he
attended the function of ‘Jalwa Pujan’. Mother of the appellant told
the mother of the respondent to transfer the house in favour of
the appellant, then altercation took place and tension was created.
In cross-examination, the witness deposed that he attended the
function of ‘Jalwa Pujan’ in afternoon as such he did not know
(14 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
what happened earlier to that. The witness also stated that the
said incident of quarrel with regard to transfer of property took
place in the evening on that day, whereas AW.6-Shyamlata in her
cross-examination has stated that the function of ‘Jalwa Pujan’
was performed in happy atmosphere and in reply to the
suggestion, she deposed that the function was started at 11:00
am and lunch was organized. The witness also stated that the
appellant raised the demand to transfer the house in her name,
firstly in the morning and again at the time of lunch. In such
circumstances, the statement of AW.4-Neeraj Soni cannot be
relied upon. According to the respondent, good number of
relatives, friends and neighbours were present in the function
when the alleged demand was made and the appellant and her
relatives created chaos, but the respondent did not produce any
independent relative or neighbour to substantiate the allegation.
The eighth ground of cruelty alleged by the respondent is
that whenever sisters of the respondent came at his house, the
appellant-wife always quarreled and misbehaved with them.
Sometimes, the appellant went to their matrimonial home and
used filthy language and also quarreled with them. The appellant
denied the allegation. The allegations are general in nature with
no details. The respondent did not produce the members of in-
laws of his sisters, except AW.7-Dr. Dinesh Agarwal, who happens
to be brother-in-law of the respondent. Neither any neighbour nor
any other relative has been examined to substantiate the
allegation. In this way, the respondent did not produce any
independent evidence to substantiate the allegation. This
(15 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
allegation is also of general in nature with no specific details,
except the details of 19.12.2000, since when the parties are living
separately.
The ninth ground of cruelty is that in the month of June,
2000, the appellant, after quarreling with her parents-in-law and
without taking permission of them, left her matrimonial home and
went to her maternal home at Kishangarh. Thereafter, the
respondent, his father and other relatives went to Kishangarh and
talked to her parents. Parents of the appellant felt sorry for the
behaviour of the appellant and assured them that she would not
repeat the same. On being assured, the respondent’s father and
other relatives brought back the appellant to her matrimonial
home on 5.8.2000. The appellant denied the allegations and
stated that the respondent and his family members used to
torture her and gave beatings for not satisfying their demand of
dowry and when the appellant told all the things to her father and
brother, then her brother Mahesh came to Jaipur and had a talk
with respondent and his family members and brought the
appellant to Kishangarh with him, because the respondent did not
give any satisfactory response. The appellant admitted that on
5.8.2000, the respondent, his father and relatives came to
Kishangarh. The appellant also stated that the respondent and his
family members felt sorry for their misdeeds and assured that
they would not repeat the same, then parents of the appellant
sent her back to her matrimonial home. The respondent-husband
did not produce any witness, who took part in the meeting held at
(16 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
Kishangarh on 5.8.2000, which would have been the best possible
evidence to substantiate the allegation levelled by the respondent.
The tenth ground of cruelty is that looking to the continuous
misbehavior of the appellant-wife, the parents of the respondent
asked the parties to live separately from them, so they shifted to a
rented house on 12.9.2000, but even then things did not change
and she was more aggressive and gave beatings to the
respondent. It is also alleged that she used to call her father,
brother and other relatives, who threatened to send the
respondent and his family to jail. It is also alleged that despite
living separately in other house, the appellant used to go to the
house of the respondent’s parents in Triveni Nagar, Jaipur and
quarreled with them and threatened to commit suicide. The
appellant-wife denied the allegations levelled by the respondent.
In this respect, none of the neighbours of the house of the
respondent has been examined to substantiate the allegations.
The allegations are general in nature, with no details.
The eleventh ground of cruelty is that being harassed with
the regular cruelty, the parents of the respondent-husband issued
public notice in newspaper on 15.10.2000 depriving the
respondent from their property. The parents of the appellant came
to the house of respondent’s parents and quarreled with them.
They also went to the house of the respondent, where they
abused him, gave beatings and threatened to kill him. The
appellant denied the allegations. In this respect, the respondent
narrated the incident in his deposition recorded by the learned
Family Court. In support of his statement, the respondent
(17 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
examined AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay and AW.3-Hemchandra Gupta,
who are neighbours of the respondent.
According to AW.2-Bhagwan Sahay, 5-6 years ago in the
night, father of the respondent called him telephonically saying
that the relatives of his daughter-in-law are about to come and
there is apprehension of quarrel. When he went to the house of
respondent’s father, the main gate of his house was locked. Some
persons standing outside the house told the witness that some
relatives have come from outside, therefore, he did not go inside
and went to the house of Dev Sahab. Dev Sahab told the witness
that parents of the appellant called him that life of their daughter
(the appellant) is in danger and asked him to register a case with
the police, but the witness refused to do so. The witness also
stated that he stayed there for some time, but no one came there
till then. The witness also stated that on the next day, he came to
know that the matter was resolved peacefully. The witness also
stated that after some days, he went to the house of his
neighbour Shekhawat on his call, then he told the witness that the
appellant and her parents came to the house of the respondent’s
parents. The witness further stated that he enquired from the
appellant about the problem, if any, then she told that the
property should be transferred in her favour and interference of
respondent’s sisters should be stopped. The witness also deposed
that they tried to resolve the matter, but they were not in the
mood of settlement, then the witness returned to his house.
Thereafter, he came to know that divorce petition has been filed.
(18 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
In cross-examination, the witness stated that he never saw the
relatives of the appellant coming to her matrimonial home.
According to AW.3-Hemchandra Gupta, in the month of
October, 2000, father of the respondent informed him
telephonically that the appellant and her family members broke
the lock and are trying to enter in his house and prayed for help.
Thereafter, the witness and father of the respondent went to the
house of Shekhawat, where the meeting was going on regarding
transfer of property in favour of the appellant, but father of the
respondent refused to do so. Thereafter, the witness returned to
his home. The witness also stated that whenever he asked the
parents of the respondent about the problem, if any, then they
used to say that the appellant does not like their daughters and
sons-in-law. The appellant has been cross-examined at length by
learned counsel for the respondent, but no question has been
asked or suggestion was made to the appellant about the alleged
incident of 15.10.2000. It is admitted fact that neither any
complaint has been filed by the respondent nor by his parents for
the alleged incident.
The twelth ground of cruelty alleged by the respondent is
that on 19.12.2000, the appellant went to the house of Smt.
Anita, elder sister of the respondent, and abused and misbehaved
with her. On the same day, the parents and brother of the
appellant came to the respondent’s house, who abused and
misbehaved with him and thereafter the appellant left the house
of the respondent and went to her maternal home without his
permission. The appellant denied the allegations levelled in the
(19 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
petition and submitted that on 19.12.2000, respondent’s brother-
in-law (Bahnoi) Shri Mahesh Lashkari came to the house of the
respondent in his absence, misbehaved with the appellant and
attempted to outrage her modesty. She tried to save herself and
cried, then Shri Mahesh Lashkari ran away from there, giving a
threat to see her in future. After some time, Mahesh Lashkari
returned with his wife, respondent and respondent’s parents, who
abused and gave her beatings and threw her out of the house and
threatened for dire-consequences. In support of the counter
allegation, the appellant examined herself and her father NAW.7-
Ram Gopal Agarwal. To rebut the allegation levelled by the
appellant, the respondent did not produce his brother-in-law Shri
Mahesh Lashkari in the witness box to face the cross-examination
by the counsel for the appellant.
The thirteenth ground of cruelty is that after leaving
matrimonial home on 19.12.2000, brother of the appellant sent a
complaint to Chief Minister and others imputing false allegations.
The police came to the house of the respondent and made
enquiries, which tarnished the image of the respondent and his
parents in society. It is an admitted fact that the appellant herself
did not lodge any report against the respondent or his parents
with the police. It is not the case of the respondent that he or his
family members were harassed by the police.
In the case of Haumantha Rao Vs. S. Ramani reported in
AIR 1999 SC 1318, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the
representation made by parents of wife to Women Protection Cell
for reconciliation of estranged spouse does not amount to mental
(20 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
cruelty upon husband, particularly in absence of evidence of the
husband or his family members were harassed by the opposite
party.
A bare perusal of pleadings of the parties, reveal that almost
all the grounds taken by the respondent in his petition for
dissolution of marriage are stale or isolated. It is an admitted fact
that out of the wedlock, the appellant gave birth to a son on
7.11.1999. In June, 2000 the appellant went to her maternal
home leaving her matrimonial home. Thereafter the matter was
resolved on 5.8.2000 and the appellant returned to her
matrimonial home with the respondent and his parents. The
instances prior to 5.8.2000 are founded on general allegations,
with no details, such as who witnessed the incidents or what are
the background of such incidents. To us, the incidents occurred
prior to 5.8.2000 cannot be made ground of petition for
dissolution of marriage because the respondent-husband and his
parents deemed to have condoned the alleged acts of the
appellant. So far as the instances alleged to occur after 5.8.2000
are concerned, the same being isolated and does not constitute an
act of cruelty.
In view of above, the allegations levelled by the respondent-
husband are vague. Mere plea of the respondent-husband that
behaviour of the appellant-wife towards him, his parents and his
sisters and his brothers-in-law was cruel and rude does not
establish the cruelty as defined by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC
511. As discussed above, the alleged misbehavior of the
(21 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
appellant-wife is not found to be proved by reliable evidence to
persuade the Court to grant decree for dissolution of the marriage.
From the documentary evidence produced by the appellant-
wife, it reveals that parties belong to Agarwal community. Agarwal
Samaj Sewa Samiti published a magazine in the year 2004
regarding members of the community with their brief introduction.
In the magazine, details of family members of the respondent was
also published and a copy whereof has been produced by the
appellant. According to the details published in the magazine, the
respondent has been introduced as 30 years old unmarried
person. It can safely be inferred that the details published in the
magazine, have been provided by the members of the concerned
family. It is not the case of the respondent that he or his family
members did not provide the information published in the
magazine. It is also pertinent to note that the parties are living
separately since 19.12.2000 and the respondent has filed the
divorce petition on 2.1.2001 i.e. within 15 days only. In these
circumstances, it appears that the respondent-husband has filed
the petition against the appellant-wife for dissolution of marriage
to get rid of her. That being the position, the finding of learned
Family Court with regard to Issue No.1 is liable to be quashed and
set aside.
It appears to us from perusal of the evidence that the
respondent-husband has failed to make out any case of cruelty
against the appellant-wife.
(22 of 22)
[CMA-3485/2006]
Before parting with, we would like to observe that after a
long litigation, the parties would realize their obligations against
each other as also towards their grown up son Rajat, being his
parents. The parties should give quite burial to their past deeds
and bitter experiences and should start living together to settle
their son in his life. Such reunion would be in the interest of
members of both the families and will bring peace, harmony and
happiness.
In view of foregoing discussions, the appeal succeeds and is
hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated
19.9.2006 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ajmer in
Matrimonial Case No.117/2006 is quashed and set aside. As a
result, the petition filed by the respondent-husband under Section
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage is
dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the marriage between the
parties is held to subsist. No order as to costs.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI)J. (AJAY RASTOGI)J.
A.Arora/-
(Reserved)
