Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 689 (RAJ)

Narendra Mohan Mathur v. Chandrakanta

2007-04-02

GUMAN SINGH, SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2007
Honble SHARMA, J.–Instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-8-2002, passed by Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur, whereby the petition filed by the appellant husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty was dismissed. (2). The marriage between the appellant and the respondent took place on 13-2-1986 in Jaipur City as per the Hindu Rites. (3). In the petition before the Judge, Family Court, No. 1, Jaipur, it was alleged by the appellant-husband that the respondent-wife was a lady of quarrelsome nature and she started behaving in a cruel manner with the family members of the appellant from very beginning. She left the house of the appellant along with her child without any information and she always insisted her husband to live in a separate house from her parents to which the appellant was not agreeable. Finally she deserted the appellant-husband in February 1998. It was under the aforesaid extreme circumstances that the petition for a decree of divorce was filed. (4). In reply, the respondent-wife denied the allegations made against her and stated that se was treated cruelly. On 16-5-1999, she was beaten and was turned out of the house. (5). On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed and the parties led their evidence:- (i) Whether the non-petitioner (wife) had treated the petitioner-husband with cruelty as narrated in the petition? (ii) Relief? (6). The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective and the finding of the Family Court regarding the issue of cruelty is not sustainable as the evidence led by the appellant was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the respondent had acted in a cruel manner and it became impossible for the appellant to keep the matrimonial ties intact. (7). Counsel for the respondent opposed the allegations levelled against her. (8). We have heard the submissions advanced before us. (9). Having gone through the statements of the parties, we noticed that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the appellant in right perspective in deciding the issue No. 1 pertaining to cruelty against the appellant husband. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Judge, Family Court can not be sustained. (10). (9). Having gone through the statements of the parties, we noticed that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the appellant in right perspective in deciding the issue No. 1 pertaining to cruelty against the appellant husband. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Judge, Family Court can not be sustained. (10). From the evidence on record, it is revealed that the marriage between the parties though took place in the year 1986 but ever since the marriage, the respondent is alleged to have treated the appellant as well as the family members of the appellant with cruelty. In the month of May, 1987, the respondent published in the news paper a false news regarding the dowry taken by the appellant and then the same was contradicted in June, 1987 which caused mental agony and brought disrepute to the appellant. From the record it is revealed that in the year 1994, the respondent had left the house of the appellant without information and she was brought back after great persuasion. It is also revealed that the respondent treated the child with cruelty and she used to neglect the child and finally she deserted the appellant in the month of February 1998 without any reasonable cause. In view of the above material on record, we set aside the finding of Family Court No. 1, Jaipur on issue No. 1 and decide the issue in favour of the appellant husband. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur is liable to be set aside. (11). We have also heard the counsel for both the parties on the point of permanent alimony and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to award a sum of Rs. 2]50]000/- by way of permanent alimony to the appellant wife. (12). For the reasons mentioned above, we allow the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 19-8-2002, passed by Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur. While allowing application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, we grant a decree of divorce in favour of the appellant and dissolve the marriage between the parties solemnized on February 13, 1986. We also award a sum of Rs. 2]50]000/- to the appellant-wife by way of permanent alimony. The judgment and decree of the Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur is modified to that extent.