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)