Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1243 (MP)

Kishnabai Shrivastava v. Manmohan Shrivastava

2003-11-14

A.K.AWASTHY

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 8. 7. 1996 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Shajapur in Civil Case No. 1/96 whereby the marriage was dissolved by the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. ( 2. ) THE admitted facts of the case are that the marriage in between the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 23. 1. 1987 according to the Hindu rites and customs and they have no issue from the wedlock. ( 3. ) THE case of the respondent petitioner is that the behaviour of the appellant was abnormal and she was in habit of picking up the quarrels unnecessarily and she used to abuse and insult the petitioner and his family members. It is also pleaded that the defendant has refused to take part in the worship of the family deity. That the defendant has not turned up even at the time of the death of his grand mother of the petitioner. That the defendant has left the matrimonial house on 2. 7. 1993 and she has not turned up even after the repeated attempts by the petitioner to bring her back. ( 4. ) THE defendant has denied that her behaviour with the petitioner and his family members was cruel or insulting or abnormal. That case of the defendant is that the petitioner had agreed for the dowry and for having more dowry he used to beat her and she was ousted from the matrimonial house in the year 1993 and thereafter the petitioner has not made any attempt to bring her back and although the family members of the defendant has made several attempts to persuade the petitioner to keep his wife in the matrimonial house. ( 5. ) THE learned Trial Court after framing the issues has examined Manmohan P. W. 1, S. S. Shrivastava P. W. 2, Ramkuvarbai P. W. 3, Mithleshprasad Shrivastava P. W. 4, Shashi Mohan P. W. 5 and from the opposite side the defendant Smt. Krishnabai D. W. 1, Laxminarayan D. W. 2, Badriprasad D. W. 3, Ghanshyam D. W. 4 and Ramswaroop D. W. 5 were examined. The learned Trial Court has held that the behaviour of the appellant defendant was cruel and as such the respondent petitioner deserves the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. The learned Trial Court has held that the behaviour of the appellant defendant was cruel and as such the respondent petitioner deserves the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. ( 6. ) THE appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and as such the impugned judgment and decree be reversed and the petition of the divorce be dismissed. ( 7. ) MANMOHAN P. W. 1 has stated that his wife was in habit of giving the dirty abuses to his family members and she used to insult him and his family members and she was in habit of picking up the quarrels. Mammohan P. W. 1 has further stated that she has refused to perform the worship to the family deity and she has also remained inside her room even at the time of the death of her grandmother. Manmohan P. W. 1 has further stated that the behaviour of his wife was like a mad lady and she used to threaten him that she will commit suicide either by jumping in the well or putting herself on fire. Manmohan P. W. 1 has further stated that he has written a letter to the brother of his wife Ex. P/1 about the cruel behaviour of the defendant. ( 8. ) S. S. Srivastava P. W. 2 has stated that he had the family terms with the petitioner and at the time of the marriage of his son the defendant has not turned up. He has further stated that at the time of the death of the grand mother of the petitioner, the defendant has not turned up to touch the feet of the grand mother and she has not even taken part in the last rites at the time of the death of the grand mother of the plaintiff. Ramkuvarbai aged 80 years was examined on commission and she is the grand mother of the petitioner. Ramkuvarbai P. W. 3 has stated that the nature of the defendant was cruelsome and she used to utter filthy abuses and she also used to give threat that she will commit suicide. Ramkuvarbai has further stated that the defendant used to insult the elder members of the family of the petitioner. ( 9. Ramkuvarbai P. W. 3 has stated that the nature of the defendant was cruelsome and she used to utter filthy abuses and she also used to give threat that she will commit suicide. Ramkuvarbai has further stated that the defendant used to insult the elder members of the family of the petitioner. ( 9. ) MITHLESH Prasad P. W. 4 has stated that petitioner Manmohan is his son and the behaviour of the defendant was offending and she has avoided to remain present even at the time of the death of the grand mother of the petitioner. Mithlesh Prasad P. W. 4 has further stated that the defendant was in habit of insulting and uttering the dirty abuses in presence of his mother Ramkuvarbai P. W. 3 and she used to behave like a mentally sick lady by weaping or laughing in the house. Shashi Mohan P. W. 5 who is the cousin of the petitioner has also corroborated the allegations made by the petitioner. There is nothing in the cross-examination of Manmohan P. W. 1, S. S. Shrivastava P. W. 2, Ramkuvarbai P. W. 3, Mithlesh Prasad P. W. 4 and Shashi Mohan P. W. 5 to disbelieve the statement. Consequently, from the statement of the aforesaid four witnesses of the petitioner, the statements of the petitioner are corroborated and proved. The behaviour of the defendant was highly offending and torturous and also cruel to the petitioner. ( 10. ) SMT. Krishnabai D. W. 1 stated that she used to properly behave with her husband and false allegations are made by her husband who intends to perform the second marriage. Laxminarayan D. W. 2 has not stated a single word in favour of the defendant. Badriprasad D. W. 3 has only stated that the defendant used to complain that her husband and the family members demand dowry. Ghanshyam D. W. 4 has stated that the defendant has sister and the petitioner had the greed for the dowry and he used to misbehave with his wife for fulfilling his demand of dowry. Ramswaroop D. W. 5 has stated that the defendant has made the complaint to him that her husband used to harass her for fulfilling his demand of dowry. Ramswaroop D. W. 5 has stated that the defendant has made the complaint to him that her husband used to harass her for fulfilling his demand of dowry. Ramswaroop D. W. 5 has further stated that he went to the house of the petitioner for persuading him for compromise but the petitioner has said that his wife is not capable of bearing the child and as such he does not want to keep her. From the statement of the witnesses of the defendant, it is clear, that the main allegation made by the petitioner about the cruel behaviour of the defendant with the petitioner are not controverted. Looking to the reliable evidence produced by the petitioner that the learned Trial Court has not committed any mistake in coming to the conclusion that the defendant-appellant is guilty of the matrimonial offence of cruelty. ( 11. ) THE marriage in between the appellant and respondent was rightly dissolved by the decree of divorce. ( 12. ) THE appeal is devoid of merits and it is, hereby, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs of the appeal.