HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2346 / 2017
Punam Chand S/o Magharam, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste
Kumhar, Resident of VPO Sardargarh, Tehsil Suratgarh, District
Smt. Parvati Devi D/o Sh. Rooparam, W/o Punam Chand, Aged
About 40 Years, By Caste Kumhar, Resident of Ward No.20, Near
Shamshan Ghat, Anoopgarh, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Panaj Gupta.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant
under Section 19 of the Family Court Act read with Section 28 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, challenging the judgment and
decree dated 06th of July, 2017 passed by learned Addl. District
Judge, Suratagarh (Family Court Judge), District Sri Ganganagar,
in Civil Misc. Case No.137/2015 (432/2014) whereby the learned
court below rejected the divorce petitioner filed by the appellant
under Section 13 (1A) (1B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act
(2 of 4)
As per facts of the case, the appellant preferred divorce
petition on 06.03.2014 under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 before
the learned Judge, Family Court, Sri Ganganagar but it was
thereafter transferred to the court of learned Addl. District Judge,
Suratagarh, in pursuance Notification dated 19.07.2015.
The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the the
respondent about 21 years back at Anoopgarh, and out of their
wedlock six children were born, however, unfortunately their son
died. The appellant preferred divorce petition on the ground of
cruelty being committed by the respondent/wife qua the appellant
and his family members. Although efforts were made for
settlement of the dispute between the parties, but the same did
not yield anything due to cruel attitude of the wife as she was
under the influence of her parents.
The respondent/wife preferred an application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. and also instituted criminal case for the offence u/s
498A, 406 and 323 of IPC. Thus the dispute between the parties
increased resulting into serious matrimonial dispute between
The learned trial court as per pleadings of the parties framed
three issues including relief for its adjudication. In the
proceedings, opportunity to lead evidence was closed on
07.04.2017 and thereafter the respondent/wife and three
witnesses were examined. The learned trial court after hearing the
arguments finally rejected the divorce petition filed by the
appellant vide its judgment and decree dated 06.07.2017, which is
under challenge in this appeal.
(3 of 4)
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case
in which opportunity to lead evidence was closed under some
wrong statement of his advocate, therefore, in the interest of
justice while quashing this exparte decree, the matter may be
remitted to the court below for fresh adjudication.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we have
perused the judgment impugned dated 06.07.2017. Admittedly
the application for divorce was filed by the appellant u/s 13 (1A)
(1B) of the Act of 1955, wherein three issues were framed which
reads as under:-
” 1- vk;k vkons u i@;kfpdk dh en l[a ;k 01 ls 07 eas
of.kZrkuqlkj v;kph ds }kjk@vkons u ds lkFk fookg ds vuq’Bku
ds mijkra Øwjrk dk O;ogkj fd;k gS
2- vk;k v;kph ds }kjk ;kfpdk nkf[ky djus ls nks o’kZ iwoZ fujUr
dkykfo/k rd ;kh ¼iwuepUn½ ifr dks vfHkR;Dr@ifjR;kx dj
3- vuqrk’s k”
For the issues, it was duty of the appellant to lead evidence
but inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, no evidence was
produced by the appellant, more so, on 07.04.2017 counsel for
the appellant submitted that he is not in a position to lead
evidence although petition for divorce was pending since 2014.
The learned court below observed that no oral or documentary
evidence has been produced, thus, it cannot be presumed that the
appellant has proved its case for the grounds set out by him in the
(4 of 4)
The learned court below considered the evidence of the
respondent-wife (NAW-1 Smt. Parvati), NAW-2- Sitaram and
NAW-3 Gopalram and held that the allegations levelled by the
appellant are far from the truth.
After taking into consideration the entire facts of the case
and considering the finding of the learned court below and the fact
that no evidence was led by the appellant despite granting of
several opportunities, either oral or documentary, we are of the
opinion that no interference is called for in this appeal.
Consequently, the instant misc. appeal is hereby dismissed.
(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA) J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS) J.