HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
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).

—-Appellant
Versus
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).

—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr.A.K.Rajvanshy with
Mr.Vishal Thakur
Mr.Sukhdev Sharma

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rahul Rajpurohit
Mr.Rakesh Chotiya for Dr.Sachin
Acharya

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

30/08/2018

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

dowry articles.

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

action.

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

Parmar

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)