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)
