SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Preti vs Jai Narayan Saharan on 5 March, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3079/2017

Preeti W/o Jai Narayan D/o Sh. Dalip Chand, By Caste Jat, R/o
Ward No. 6 Shadulsahar, District Sri Ganganagar At Present
Lalgarh Jatan, Tehsil Shadulsaher, District Sri Ganganagar.

—-Appellant
Versus
Jai Narayan Saharan S/o Sh. Krishan Lal Saharan, By Caste Jat,
R/o Ward No. 6 Tehsil Shadulsaher, District Sri Ganganagar.

—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saurabh Soni on behalf of Mr. NK
Sharma

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

(Per Dinesh Mehta, J.) :: 5th March, 2019

The present appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 lays a challenge to the judgment and decree

dated 3.7.2017, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sri

Ganganagar, whereby appellant’s petition for divorce has been

rejected.

Briefly stated, the facts for the present purposes are that the

appellant Preeti filed a petition for divorce on the ground of

cruelty, enumerated in Section 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955. The appellant, who got married with the respondent on

28.4.2010 as per Hindu rituals, started living at Ward No.6,

Saduralshahar, pleaded in the petition that though she had been

discharging her marital obligations properly, but the respondent-

husband and his other family members started harassing her as
(2 of 6) [CMA-3079/2017]

she had not brought dowry as per their expectation. It was also

averred that the respondent and his relatives coerced her to bring

a sum of Rs.1 lac, and on his father’s failure to fulfill their

unjustified demand, the annoyed respondent and his family

members had beaten her. It had also been pleaded that the

respondent wanted the appellant to bring the money, which she

had given to her parents out of the salary she received from the

government job.

In response to the petition for divorce so filed by the

appellant, the respondent husband filed a written statement and

denied all the allegations levelled against him. The respondent

stated that the appellant-wife is egoist and quarrelsome in nature,

who wanted to get rid of him in bid to marry another person. The

respondent specifically denied the allegation of beating and

harassing her for dowry, while maintaining that the appellant is

cantankerous in nature.

On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned

Court below framed the following issues:

“¼1½ vk;k v;kph ds fo:) muds e/; fnukad 28-04-2010 dks
vuq”Bkfir fookg dks ;kfpdk esas of.kZr vuqlkj v;kph }kjk ;kph ds
lkFk dh xbZ dzwjrk ds vk/kkj ij fookg foPNsn dh fMdzh }kjk fo?kfVr
djk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS
;kph
¼2½ vuqrks”k”

With a view to prove her case, the appellant filed her

affidavit, which was essentially reproduction of her pleadings. It is

pertinent that during the cross-examination, she accepted that her

present place of posting is at Ellenabad, Haryana and she found it
(3 of 6) [CMA-3079/2017]

difficult to come to her in-law’s place at Sardulshahar for want of

permission to remain away of the headquarters.

The appellant’s father also appeared as witness to support

her case; during the course of cross-examination he

unequivocally admitted that neither he nor his daughter Preeti has

ever lodged any case of dowry or harassment against the

respondent-husband. It has also been admitted that his daughter

Preeti has not filed any application for restitution of conjugal rights

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

It is noteworthy that during the course of cross-examination,

Dilip, the appellant’s father had conceded that the appellant finds

it difficult to frequently come to Sardulshahar and precisely for

this reason, she wanted dissolution of her marriage.

The learned Court below after appreciating the material and

evidence on record decided the issue no.1 against the appellant

while observing that the appellant had failed to prove the

allegations of cruelty. The learned Court below has recorded a

finding that the appellant had not led any evidence, for which it

could reach to a conclusion that the respondent has committed

cruelty of such nature that would require dissolution of the

marriage between the rival parties. While discussing the

evidence, the family Court has observed that appellant’s elder

sister Poonam, who was married to the brother of the respondent

Jai Narayan, namely, Praveen, is living happily after her marriage

and there is no dispute of dowry between them.

Learned family Court also held that the allegations of beating

levelled by the appellant are not specific and more so, they have

not been proved by way of leading evidence; neither any date(s)
(4 of 6) [CMA-3079/2017]

have been mentioned in the petition nor specific incidents have

been divulged during evidence.

Questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment and

decree dated 3.7.2007, passed by the learned Family Court, Mr.

Sushil Bishnoi contended that the appellant-wife had pleaded and

proved beyond doubt that the respondent-husband was guilty of

cruelty; for which her petition for divorce deserved acceptance.

He argued that the cruelty cannot be explained and proved by one

incidence and it has to be considered and held proved on the basis

of overall behaviour of the husband. He argued that it is true that

no specific dates and incidents have been mentioned by the

appellant, yet the appellant’s evidence that the respondent-

husband used to beat the appellant, besides, ill-treating and

harassing her for the dowry, is enough to prove cruelty.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other

hand supported the order passed by the Family Court and while

denying all the charges contended that no evidence has been led

by the appellant to prove the allegation of cruelty and prayed for

dismissal of the appeal.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record, including the evidence led by the

parties.

A perusal of the divorce petition filed by the appellant shows

that she has levelled allegation of thrashing and bashing, besides

accusing him for incessant demand of dowry. If the evidence led

by the appellant and her father is taken into account, it transpires

that she had not narrated even a single incident of her being

beaten by the respondent-husband. The affidavit filed by the

appellant simply echos her averments in the plaint; which too are
(5 of 6) [CMA-3079/2017]

as vague as they could be. Though during the course of her

cross-examination, the appellant has maintained her stand and

denied all the suggestions made by the respondent’s counsel

about seeking divorce for other extraneous reasons. But then, we

have to weigh the rival evidence and existing circumstances.

As against this, evidence led by Jai Narayan suggests that

soon after getting married, when the appellant got Government

job, she started quarreling with him. The respondent has deposed

that the appellant, a quarrelsome lady, did not want to live with

him. She had left the matrimonial house on 2-3 occasions and

refused to live with him, as she was drawing a monthly salary of

Rs.30,000/-, whereas he remained an unemployed youth. The

respondent has deposed that the appellant does not want to live

with him and is seeking divorce for her own whims. He specifically

denied any incident of beating, and also denied the allegations of

demanding dowry. During the course of cross-examination, the

respondent denied the suggestion that he was jealous of the

appellant-wife, as she was earning more by way of Government

job. The respondent also denied the suggestion that he had asked

the appellant to leave the Government job.

On behalf of the respondent, his father Krishan Lal appeared

in the witness box and supported the case of the respondent. The

said Krishan Lal clearly denied the appellant’s allegation that

respondent Jai Narayan used to drink and beat his wife. He also

denied any incident of man-handling by his son.

Upon overall appreciation of the pleadings and evidence led

by the parties, we are of the view that the appellant’s allegations

of cruelty based on assertion of beating and harassment for dowry

are not only vague, but are also uncorroborated by evidence.

(6 of 6) [CMA-3079/2017]

It is true that the cruelty has also been prescribed as a

ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but then, the cruelty is required to be

proved by evidence. The proven cruelty should also be of such

extent or gravity, that the Court can conclude that having suffered

such cruelty, the victim cannot go alongwith the matrimony.

The appellant has failed to prove any incident of beating and

demand of dowry, which may amount to cruelty. Her bald

allegations are absolutely ambiguous and non-specific. Neither in

her pleadings nor in her affidavit, the appellant has narrated any

specific case of bashing by the respondent-husband. The

appellant has also failed to drive home her allegation of demand of

dowry.

Having considered the facts and material obtaining in the

present case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned

Member of the Family Court has committed no error of law in

rejecting appellant’s petition for divorce. Hence, we see no

reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree, which is

based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record.

The appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, dismissed. No

order as to costs.

(DINESH MEHTA),J (SANGEET LODHA),J

CPGoyal/- reserved

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation