HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2360 / 2017
Rajkumar S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, By Caste- Suthar, Resident
of Dholipal, Tehsil District- Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
Suman W/o Rajkumar D/o Shri Aadram, By Caste- Suthar,
Resident of Ward No.9, Rawla Mandi, Tehsil- Gharsana, District-
Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Jain.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA
Per Hon’ble Mr. G.K. Vyas, J.
Date of Judgment 06/04/2018
The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant
under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court’s Act 1984 against the
judgment and decree dated 14th of July, 2017 passed by learned
Judge Family Court No.1, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No.163/2012
(478/2014) (Rajkumar Vs. Suman), whereby he dismissed the
application filed by the appellant under Section 13-A of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (Act of 1955) and refused to grant decree for
(2 of 5)
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the marriage of
the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 23.06.2004
at Village Rawla, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar as per
Hindu customs and rituals. Subsequently a son was born from the
wedlock who was about 4 years of age at the time of filing of the
application. It is also stated that after some time of the marriage
the respondent/wife started committing mental cruelty with him
as she did not take any interest the house work and always
remained ready to quarrel with the appellant. She was specifically
alleging that he (appellant) is a gambler in front of relatives and
family members and gave threatening for implication him and his
family members in false case, therefore, the appellant suffer
mental agony by her rude behavior. Further, a false case was
registered under Section 498A and 406 of IPC against the
appellant and his family members, in which the police gave
negative final report and the same was accepted by the court
concerned. The respondent/wife voluntarily went to her parents’
house and despite making best of efforts at social level by the
appellant, the appellant did not come to reside the appellant. The
respondent-wife specifically denied to live with him and also
refused to take mutual divorce with consent.
Upon the aforesaid facts, the divorce application was filed, in
which the respondent-wife filed reply and accepted the factum of
marriage and birth of son from their wedlock, however, she denied
other allegations levelled in the divorce application and shown her
willingness to live with appellant along with her son. In the reply,
it was stated by the respondent-wife appellant has extramarital
(3 of 5)
affair with one girl, namely, Neetu and he used to life with her,
therefore, appellants wants to take divorce and for said reason
forcibly expelled her from the house. It was further stated that in
the proceedings before this Court against forcibly marriage of said
Neetu, an affidavit was filed by the appellant that Neetu is his girl
friend and this fact is not refuted by the appellant.
As per pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge, Family
Court No.1, Bikaner framed two issues, which are reproduced
herein below: –
1- Whether the applicant is entitled to get the decree of
dissolution of marriage solemnized on 23.06.2004 on the
grounds as mentioned in the application?
In support of divorce application, the appellants examined
himself as AW.1 and also examined two other witnesses, namely,
AW.2- Lokesh and AW.3- Bhagwati. On the other hand, from the
side of respondent, she herself appeared before the court below as
NAW.1 and got her statements recorded.
The learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Bikaner after hearing
arguments of both the sides, vide its judgment and decree dated
14.07.2017 proceeded to dismiss the divorce application filed by
the appellant-husband under Section 13-A of the Act of 1955.
In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the said
judgment and decree.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that
soon after the marriage the behavior of the respondent became
quarrelsome and she was not interested to live with the parents of
(4 of 5)
the appellant and regularly creating unhealthy atmosphere in the
house, which falls under the category of cruelty. It is further
submitted that Neetu, is girl friend and the appellant is not having
any illicit relations with her, therefore, the allegations levelled by
the respondent are false, however, the learned court below failed
to consider this aspect of the matter.
Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that
criminal cases under Section 498A and 406 IPC were filed by the
respondent-wife, out of which, in one case, FR was given by the
police on account of a compromise arrived at between the parties
but the fact remains that criminal cases were also registered
against the appellant upon complaint filed by the respondent-wife.
Thus is obvious that the conduct of the respondent is bad and she
does not want to live with him, therefore, it is a case for granting
divorce decree but the learned court below refused to grant
divorce decree. Thus it is prayed that the divorce decree deserves
to be quashed and set aside.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we have
perused the record summoned from the family court.
It is admitted position of the case and proceedings were
initiated by the appellant before the High Court against the early
marriage of one Neetu, in which an affidavit was filed by the
appellant that Neetu, who is his neighbor, is my girl friend and
this fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the
appellant but submit that mere acceptance of the fact of girl friend
it cannot be presumed that he is having relations with Neetu.
Further, there is no material evidence on record to prove the
(5 of 5)
cruelty being committed by the respondent-wife qua the appellant
or misbehavour of the respondent-wife. More so, the learned court
below observed that after compromise in criminal case registered
under Section 498A and 406, the respondent-wife lived with the
appellant till 2009. It was admitted fact that FR was given on the
basis of compromise, therefore, it cannot be said that there was
any cruelty of respondent-wife towards appellant. It is a case in
which the conduct of the appellant is seriously doubtful because
he has accepted that one Neetu is his girl friend.
In view of the fact that no trustworthy material evidence is
produced by the appellant in support his allegations for cruelty by
the respondent-wife, it cannot be said that the learned court
below has committed any error so as to give finding against him
or to dismiss the application for divorce filed by the appellant
under Section 13 of the Act of 1955.
Consequently, there is no force in this appeal, hence the
same is hereby dismissed.
(RAMCHANDRA SINGH JHALA) J. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS) J.