Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 541 (MP)

Arvind Sahu v. Rajni Sahu

2003-04-14

A.K.AWASTHY

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 24. 2. 2001 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 67-A/2000 dismissing the appellants petition for restitution of conjugal rights. ( 2. ) THE admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised at Bhopal on 20th May, 1994 according to Hindu rites. That at the time of the marriage the appellant was employed in a Private Limited Company at Mandideep and his wife was working in the State Cooperative Bank, New Market, M. P. Nagar, Bhopal. ( 3. ) THE case of the appellant/petitioner is that few days after the marriage, the petitioner left the service and thereafter his wife started going on and off to her parents house without consent of the petitioner. That after one year of the marriage inspite of the repeated requests by the petitioner, the respondent stopped coming to the house of the petitioner and refused to live with the petitioner. The petitioner has averred that in the month of January, 2000 a notice was sent by the respondent to the petitioner and when he went to meet the respondent/wife, then his signatures were taken on a blank paper. That the respondent is living away from the petitioner without any rhyme and reason and such the respondent be, Under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directed to restore the conjugal rights. ( 4. ) THE respondent has denied that after the petitioner left the job, she started leaving his house without permission and used to stay even in the night at the house of her parents. The respondent has alleged that the petitioner used to torture her for not bringing enough dowry and as she was beaten and injured by the petitioner. That on 29. 12. 1994, the petitioner assaulted her and caused the injury on her cheeks and the neighbours came to the rescue of the respondent. That the respondent apprehends that her life will not be safe if she lives with the petitioner and, therefore, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights be dismissed. ( 5. That on 29. 12. 1994, the petitioner assaulted her and caused the injury on her cheeks and the neighbours came to the rescue of the respondent. That the respondent apprehends that her life will not be safe if she lives with the petitioner and, therefore, the petition for restitution of conjugal rights be dismissed. ( 5. ) LEARNED Trial Court has recorded the statement of the witnesses of the parties jointly in this case and the connected Civil Suit No. 22a/98 filed by the respondent/wife Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was for seeking the divorce. ( 6. ) AFTER recording the statements of 3 witnesses of the respondent and two witnesses of the appellant/petitioner, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that the cruelty caused by the appellant was sufficient ground for his wife of living separately from him. ( 7. ) THE appellant has assailed the judgment of the learned Trial Court on the ground that evidence was not properly appreciated and the application for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed against the law applicable in the case. ( 8. ) RESPONDENT has supported the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court and it is alleged that the treatment of the appellant was cruel and as such the application for restitution of conjugal rights was rightly rejected by the Court and it deserves no interference. ( 9. ) ARVIND Sahu (R. W. 1) has stated that his wife has left him after 4-5 months of the marriage and she was never beaten by him. Arvind Sahu (P. W. 1) has further stated that the non-applicant living away from him without any rhyme and reason and he is ready to live with the non-applicant. The statement of the applicant that he is ready and willing to keep his wife is not sincere because the applicant and non-applicant were living separately from six years and petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the appellant after the non-applicant made the petition on 10. 9. 1999 for her divorce with the applicant Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is proved that Ex. PI is an Agreement for divorce and it was executed on 2. 6. 1996 in which the applicant and non-applicant and father of the applicant have signed. 9. 1999 for her divorce with the applicant Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is proved that Ex. PI is an Agreement for divorce and it was executed on 2. 6. 1996 in which the applicant and non-applicant and father of the applicant have signed. It is also clear from the Talaknama (Ex. PI) that it was signed by 8 Panchas of the community who were present from both the sides. The very fact that the applicant has agreed for the divorce with the non-applicant establishes that the applicant was not willing to live with the non-applicant. The husband who is really sincere to keep his wife and restore the conjugal rights will never agree and sign the agreement before the Panchas for the divorce with his wife. Non-applicant Rajni Sahu has deposed in her statement that her husband Wiis in the habit of beating her and report (Ex. P5) was lodged by her on 10. 5. 1996 to the police. That again she made the report to the police (Exs. P7 and P8) when the applicant caught and manhandle her. The statement of Rajni Sahu (D. W. 1) is supported by Smt. Anuja Sanjay (D. W. 3) who has stated that about 3 to 4 times the non-applicant was beaten by her husband. It is noteworthy that Arvind Sahu (P. W. 1) has admitted that Anuja Sanjay (D. W. 3) is the friend of his wife and there is nothing in the evidence of Anuja Sanjay (D. W. 3) to disbelieve her. Consequently the statement of Rajni Sahu (D. W. 1) and Anuja Sanjay (D. W. 3) along with the police report by the non-applicant (Ex. P5, Ex. P7 and Ex. P8) and the agreement executed for divorce (Ex. PI) establishes that the behaviour of the appellant was cruel with his wife and he was not willing to live with his wife. Consequently the respondent has justification in living separately with her husband. ( 10. ) LEARNED Trial Court has rightly held that the respondent/non-applicant was treated with cruelty by her husband Arvind Sahu and as such the applicant is not entitled for the relief of restitution of conjugal rights. ( 11. ) THE appeal is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed.