HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1831/2015
Narayan S/o Shri Ganesh Lal Ji Suthar, Resident of Inside
Vishvakarma Gate, Behind Kaliji Mandir, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
Saraswati W/o Narayan, D/o Shri Ashu Ram Ji Kulariya, By caste
Suthar, Resident of A-167, Antyoday Nagar, Behind Ramesh
English School, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
For Appellant(s) : Mr.A.K.Rajvanshy with
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rahul Rajpurohit
Mr.Rakesh Chotiya for Dr.Sachin
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
1. Without pleading whether decree of divorce was being
sought on ground of cruelty and/or desertion, the appellant filed a
petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
pleading that marriage between the parties was solemnized as per
Hindu custom on 6.4.2006. That two sisters of the appellant were
already married. Appellant’s father had retired from service.
Appellant’s mother was suffering from various ailments. That from
the very first night of the marriage the respondent did not accord
status of a husband to the appellant and refused to have physical
relationship with him. That the house of the maternal grand-
parents of the respondent was adjoining the house of the
(2 of 5) [CMA-1831/2015]
appellant and this was the reason why the appellant and the
respondent came to know each other. The appellant fell in love
with the respondent. Matrimonial relationship was the end result.
That the appellant did not desire any dowry and did not take any
dowry. Next day when he went to the house of his in-laws to seek
their blessings his in-laws said that they would bless him only
after he takes the dowry articles. Therefore he took the dowry
articles. Same night there was a religious function in his house. To
insult him the respondent threatened to live with her father and
go to the parental house. He begged of them to stay back. But
next day morning respondent left with her brother to parental
house. Before she left he begged off her not to go. She abused
him and gave him a slap and left with her brother. That after
taking an examination the appellant went to the house of his in-
laws. His father-in-law scolded him and respondent’s brother said
that he would not send his sister with him. That after the
respondent returned to her matrimonial house she started
troubling his parents and was disrespectful towards them. On the
seventh day of the marriage when the appellant asked the
respondent for the key of the almirah so that he could take out his
clothes from the almirah the respondent threw the key at his face.
That whenever respondent used to come to her matrimonial house
she used to fight and foul the atmosphere in the house. On
8.9.2006 she accused him of being impotent and left the
matrimonial house. On 20.1.2007 and 3.11.2007 he sent
registered notices to the respondent requesting her to take back
2. To a reader of the petition, at first blush it strikes that the
pleadings are diffused and inchoate. In paragraph 4 it is pleaded
(3 of 5) [CMA-1831/2015]
that the appellant and the respondent had met each other
because respondent’s maternal grand-parents house was adjoining
the house of the appellant and they fell in love with each other.
But in the preceding paragraph 3 it is stated that on the first night
of the wedding respondent refused to have physical relationship
with the appellant. In paragraph 6 it is pleaded that the next day
of the marriage when the appellant and the respondent went to
respondent’s house to seek blessings, his in-laws said that they
would bless him only after he accepts the dowry articles and thus
he was compelled to receive the same. Meaning thereby, so much
concerned were the parents of the respondent that not taking
dowry by the appellant had hurt them and lest they be hurt the
appellant took the dowry articles. But in the next paragraph i.e.
paragraph 7 it it stated that at the religious function in the
appellant’s house at night the respondent and her father created a
scene. In paragraph 8, as noted above, general averments without
particulars have been made to the effect that after taking the
examination when appellant returned to his house and went to the
house of his in-laws, his father-in-law scolded him. When did the
appellant leave his house to take some examination? None has
been stated. When he returned? None has been stated.
3. In our opinion so general and vague are the pleadings in the
petition that no trial ought to have been conducted. The petition
should have been thrown out as not disclosing any cause of
4. Be that as it may, while appearing as his witness the
appellant verbatim copied his pleadings in his affidavit by way of
evidence. In cross-examination he denied the suggestions made
that the allegations which he made were false. But relevant would
(4 of 5) [CMA-1831/2015]
it be to note that he admitted the documents Ex.A/1, being a
letter sent by him to the respondent. The letter bears date
9.9.2009. The relevance of the date is that as per the appellant
the respondent left the matrimonial house on 8.9.2006. In the
letter the appellant commences by praying for the well being of
the respondent. That it has been eight months since the
respondent left the matrimonial house. That presumably the
respondent suffered pain as the appellant did during this period of
separation. That if the respondent was happy to break the
marriage, the appellant would abide by her wishes. The appellant
can never imagine that this would be their fate in life. That all
mobile numbers of respondent had changed and thus he could not
contact her. The appellant admitted Ex.A/2 as his writing dated
28.2.2008 in which it is written that in the evening after school he
would meet respondent in her parental house. He admitted Ex.A/3
in which he wrote: ‘All life in matrimonial house or all life in the in-
laws’ house’. He admitted that the envelope Ex.A/4 had the
address of the addressee scribed in his hand. He admitted that the
postal envelope Ex.A/5 was scribed in his hand.
5. We have noted the five exhibited documents and in respect
of A/4 and A/5 the relevance would it be to note that on
20.1.2007 the appellant sent to the respondent through registered
post an envelope and in the envelope we find a proforma to be
filled up with the employment exchange. The envelope Ex.A/5
contains a card of New Year greetings.
6. As noted above the appellant pleaded that on 20.1.2007 and
3.11.2007 he sent registered notices to the respondent asking her
to take back the dowry articles. The two registered envelopes
belies the version of the appellant.
(5 of 5) [CMA-1831/2015]
7. We need not waste our time on discussing any further
evidence. The reason is that the pleadings of the appellants are
inchoate and diffused. They are contradictory. On the face of it a
fanciful version has been pleaded. The appellant’s assertion that
on 20.1.2007 and 3.11.2007 he sent notices to his wife has been
disproved through Ex.A/4 and Ex.A/5.
8. As regards the respondent, her version in the reply was that
adequate dowry by her parents was given. She had physical
relationship with the appellant and was never disrespectful
towards her in-laws. On 1.2.2009 she was thrown out from the
matrimonial house in the clothes she was wearing. Her dowry
articles were retained.
9. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment with respect
to the pleadings of the appellant.
10. The only contention argued today by counsel for the
appellant is that a false case was registered by the respondent
against the appellant for offences under Section 498A/406 IPC in
which the appellant has been acquitted. But counsel admitted that
appeal against said decision is pending in the Court of Sessions.
11. On this aspect of the matter we only need to note that in the
petition seeking divorce it is not the case of the appellant that
mental cruelty was inflicted upon him when the respondent filed a
false case of dowry harassment against him.
12. The appeal is dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)