SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Uttam Chand vs Smt. Kavita on 6 September, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 803/2018

Uttam Chand Son Of Shri Mohan Lal, aged 26 years, by Caste
Suthar, Resident Of Raithal, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore
Rajasthan

—-Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kavita Daughter Of Shri Tulsiram Wife Of Shri Uttam
Chand, By Caste Suthar, Resident Of Opposite District Industries
Center, Jalore, Tehsil And District Jalore.

—-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : None present.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amitabh Acharya.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

06/09/2018

1. None appears for the appellant at the hearing today.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the respondent and

have perused the trial Court record.

3. The respondent sued appellant for divorce alleging

cruelty. Her case was that the marriage between the couple was

solemnised as per Hindu customs on 22.4.2015. For about four

months there was no problem in the matrimonial house. After four

months, the father and mother of the appellant i.e. her inlaws

started demanding dowry in the form of a jeep and under

instigation of her parents, the appellant used to beat her. He used

to support the dowry demand made by his parents. That the

appellant used to send her through the mobile phone filthy and

vulgar messages and for which she was forced to lodge a
(2 of 3) [CMA-803/2018]

complaint under the I.T. Act. That she was thrown out of the

matrimonial house on 19.8.2015 after being beaten and for which

she lodged an F.I.R. for offences punishable under Sections 498A,

323, 406 I.P.C. in which the appellant was convicted by the

learned Magistrate on 9.2.2017. The respondent also sought

permanent alimony.

4. In the reply filed, the appellant denied having troubled

the respondent on account of dowry. He pleaded that his wife was

lodging false cases against him.

5. The trial Court record shows that on 10.1.2018, the

respondent examined herself as AW-1 and deposed facts in sync

with her pleadings. She proved the order dated 9.2.2017 by which

the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under

Section 498A I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

six months. The same is Exhibit-1.

6. The cross examination was cryptic. Suggestions made

to the respondent are that she was deposing falsity. Needless to

say she denied the same.

7. The order-sheet dated 10.1.2018 shows that after the

respondent closed her evidence, the appellant made a statement

that he does not want to lead any evidence.

8. Be that as it may, in view of the testimony of the

respondent and proof of the appellant being convicted for dowry

demand and there being no rebuttal evidence the learned Judge

Family Court vide judgment dated 19.1.2018 has allowed the

petition filed by the respondent granting divorce. Permanent

alimony in sum of ₹5,000/- per month which was awarded under

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been awarded with a
(3 of 3) [CMA-803/2018]

stipulation that the same will be paid till the respondent got

remarried.

9. Surprisingly enough in the impugned decision in

paragraph 5, there is a reference to some proceedings initiated

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. We have perused the

pleadings of the parties and the evidence led and find no reference

in the record of the learned Judge Family Court to any proceedings

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

10. Taking advantage of a reference to proceedings under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the impugned judgment in

appeal it is pleaded that the respondent left the matrimonial house

without a justifiable cause and the appellant has an order in his

favour under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

11. In the appeal, no particulars of the said proceedings

had been given. As noted above in the trial Court record there is

neither any document to prove the same nor there is reference in

the pleadings. Thus, nothing turns on the grounds urged in the

appeal concerning proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act.

12. As regards the merits of the impugned judgment, in

view of the facts noted by us herein above the appellant led no

evidence in rebuttal, we are constrained to uphold the decision of

learned Judge Family Court, Jalore dated 19.1.2018.

13. The appeal is dismissed.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ.

S.Phophaliya/-14

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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

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