Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 544 (MP)

Mangaldeen v. Munnibai

2003-04-16

A.K.AWASTHY

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act challenging the judgment and decreed dated 5. 7. 1995 in Case No. 23a/90 delivered by Additional District Judge, Maihar, Distt. Satna regarding the dismissal of the petition for divorce which was filed on the ground of adultery. ( 2. ) THE admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnised according to the Hindu rites and from the wedlock they have two sons. It is also admitted that the appellant/plaintiff is working in MPEB at Jabalpur. ( 3. ) THE case of the appellant/plaintiff is that appellant/plaintiff received negligible share in his family partition and as such for livelihood he was forced to leave his children and wife in village and he went to earn money at Jabalpur. That after 5 or 6 years he came to know that his wife Munni Bai has developed illicit relation with the appellant sisters husband, Badri Prasad, and that the respondent/wife got pregnant with Badri Prasad. That in the village Panchayat Badri Prasad admitted his illicit relation with respondent/wife and agreed to keep her with him as his own wife. The appellant has prayed that his wife had a child with Badri Prasad and she is leading adultress life and as such their marriage be dissolved by decree of divorce. ( 4. ) THE respondent/wife has denied the allegation that she is having illicit relation with Badri Prasad. She has averred in her written statement that she has filed Criminal Case No. 34/1986 Under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. against the appellant/husband for her maintenance and as such the appellant /husband has concocted the false story against the respondent/wife to deprive her from giving maintenance Under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. ( 5. ) LEARNED Trial Court has concluded that the appellant/husband has cooked up a false story against the respondent/wife about her illicit relation with Badri Prasad. That this false story is prepared to deprive the respondent/wife from claiming maintenance Under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C ( 6. P. C. ( 5. ) LEARNED Trial Court has concluded that the appellant/husband has cooked up a false story against the respondent/wife about her illicit relation with Badri Prasad. That this false story is prepared to deprive the respondent/wife from claiming maintenance Under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C ( 6. ) THE appellant/husband has assailed the judgment delivered by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the Court has not properly considered the affidavit of Badri Prasad and his petition is dismissed without properly appreciating the evidence on record and the law applicable in the case, ( 7. ) ADMITTEDLY there is no direct evidence of the fact that the respondent/ wife is having illicit relationship with Badri Prasad. The appellant has examined himself as A. W. 1, witnesses Ram Sajiwan A. W. 2 and Ram Dhari A. W. 3. These witnesses have stated that they have heard the rumour in the village that the wife of the appellant is having the illicit relation with Badri Prasad. The appellant has heavily relied on the affidavit Ex. P/1 which is alleged to have been given by Badri Prasad to the panchas of the village. In this affidavit Ex. P/1 Badri Prasad has stated that wife of the appellant is living with him (Badri Prasad) as his wife and the child which will take birth will be looked after by him (Badri Prasad ). In the affidavit Ex. P/1 Badri Prasad has admitted that in future he will keep the respondent as his wife. ( 8. ) EX. P/1 is not an affidavit but it is executed on plain paper. This Ex. P/1 is not signed by respondent Munni Bai. From the statement of Ram Sajiwan (A. W. 2) and Ram Dhari (A. W. 3), it is clear that respondent Munnibai was not called in Panchayat when Ex. P/1 was given by said Badri Prasad. There is no apparent reason why the appellant has not filed the decision taken by the Panchas. It is not explained how it has come in possession of appellant. This affidavit Ex. P/1 was alleged to be executed after the respondent/wife has filed suit for maintenance Under Section 125, against the appellant/husband. It appears that Ex. There is no apparent reason why the appellant has not filed the decision taken by the Panchas. It is not explained how it has come in possession of appellant. This affidavit Ex. P/1 was alleged to be executed after the respondent/wife has filed suit for maintenance Under Section 125, against the appellant/husband. It appears that Ex. P/1 is forged to prove the cook and bull story prepared by the appellant about the relationship of his wife with Badri Prasad in order to defend the case filed against him by the respondent/wife Under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. The evidence produced by the appellant to prove the imputation of adultery against the respondent/wife is lame and suspicious. ( 9. ) THE learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition of the appellant. The appeal has no merit and it is hereby dismissed.