Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 153 (UTT)

SHRI SANJEEV BHATIA v. GEETA RANI

2008-04-03

DHARAM VEER, PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2008
JUDGMENT [Per : Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral)] This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2007, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, in Original Suit No. 251 of 2003, whereby the appellant's petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce is dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/husband filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce against his wife Smt. Geeta Rani (respondent) before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Haridwar. It is pleaded by the appellant/husband in said petition that he got married to Geeta Rani (respondent) on 21.11.2002, following Hindu rites, in Haridwar. A female child was born out of the wedlock on 29.09.2002. It is further pleaded that petitioner/appellant runs a small grocery shop in Haridwar and his father who is a retired officer from Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, assists him in the business. On the other hand respondent's mother Bhagwan Devi also used to run her shop of general merchant and it is alleged that respondent helped in her mother's business. The allegations made in the petition, filed before the trial court, are that after marriage, the respondent started treating the petitioner with cruelty. She frequently used to leave her husband's house to go to her mother's house. She used to pour too much chilly and salt in the dishes she prepared. It is also alleged in the petition by appellant/husband that he was subject to physical as well as mental cruelty by his wife Geeta Rani. The petitioner apprehended that his life is in danger if he is made to live with his wife. It is also pleaded by the husband that his wife threatens him that if she is made to live in her husband's house she would take poison and commit suicide. It is further pleaded that she threatens to get the parents of the petitioner sent to jail. It is pleaded that respondent left her husband's house on 16.05.2002 where she delivered the female child on 29.09.2002. Petitioner's case is that he is the only son of his parents who are old aged and suffering from heart ailment. It is further pleaded that she threatens to get the parents of the petitioner sent to jail. It is pleaded that respondent left her husband's house on 16.05.2002 where she delivered the female child on 29.09.2002. Petitioner's case is that he is the only son of his parents who are old aged and suffering from heart ailment. It is further stated in the petition that by filing an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the relations between the parties have further worsened. With these allegations divorce is sought by the petitioner (present appellant). 4. The respondent contested the petition moved by her husband and filed her written statement before the trial court. She admitted having married to the petitioner. She also admitted having delivered a female child on 29.09.2002 conceived through her husband. It is also admitted that petitioner runs a shop and his father who is a retired officer of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited helps him in his business. However, rest of the contents of the petition as stated are denied by the respondent, who pleaded that she is ready to live with her husband but she is compelled to leave her husband's house by the petitioner and his parents. It is alleged in the written statement that the petitioner and his parents were not happy with the dowry given by the mother of the respondent in the marriage. It is further pleaded by the respondent that ill treatment on the part of the petitioner against respondent went to the extent of restricting the respondent even from meeting or talking on phone with her mother. It is further pleaded by the respondent that she never gave any beating nor hurled any abuses at the petitioner. According to the respondent she was forced by her husband and in-laws on 06.08.2002 to leave her husband's house and as such being helpless she was left with no option but to stay with her mother, who was maintaining her and her daughter. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:- (i) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty? (ii) Whether the petitioner treated the respondent with cruelty? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce, as claimed? 6. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:- (i) Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty? (ii) Whether the petitioner treated the respondent with cruelty? (iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce, as claimed? 6. After recording evidence of the parties and hearing them, the trial court found that the respondent has not treated the petitioner with cruelty and as such it dismissed the petitioner for divorce. Hence this appeal. 7. We have examined the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court afresh. Admittedly marriage took place on 21.11.2001 between the parties and a female child named Chhavi was born out of the wedlock on 29.09.2002. However, there are allegations of cruelty as against each other made by the parties in their pleadings and in the oral evidence adduced by them. Narrating the cruelty the petitioner who got himself examined as P.W.1 Sanjeev Bhatia has stated that his wife used to beat him. She used to pour too much chilly and salt in the dishes she prepared. It is further stated by him that on oath that she used to give threat of committing suicide. It is further stated by him that she used to hurl abuses at his parents. P.W.2 Kastori Lal Bhatia, father of the petitioner/appellant has supported his son's case by getting himself examined. On the other hand the respondent has got herself examined as D.W.1 Geeta Rani and denied the allegations made by her husband. Rather she has alleged in her statement on oath that she was beaten by Sanjeev Bhatia (husband) and his mother. She has further alleged that she was made to leave the house of her husband on 6th August 2002. Narrating her plight D.W.1 Geeta Rani says that after the girl child was delivered by her at her mother's place, when the information was sent to the petitioner's family no-one came to see her. It is pertinent to mention here that both the parties live in Haridwar. D.W.1 Geeta Rani has stated that she is still ready to go to her husband's house. 8. Having weighed the evidence adduced by the parties, we do not find any error committed by the trial court in dismissing the petition. It is pertinent to mention here that both the parties live in Haridwar. D.W.1 Geeta Rani has stated that she is still ready to go to her husband's house. 8. Having weighed the evidence adduced by the parties, we do not find any error committed by the trial court in dismissing the petition. The cross examination of D.W.1 Geeta Rani shows that her widowed mother with whom she was living has died and she is ready to go to her husband's house and ready to live with the parents of her husband. She has further stated that she would not like to insist her husband to be separated from his parents. A specific question has been asked in the cross-examination to this effect and her answer to the query makes it abundantly clear that the respondent wants to live with her husband and in-laws. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has rightly observed that even though the allegations of her harassment due to non-fulfillment of dowry made by her, she had restrained herself from making any complaint against her husband or his parents relating to offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C., which indicates the respondent's conduct that she does not want that her in-laws should be made to suffer due to matrimonial discord between the respondent and her husband. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant drew attention of this Court to the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 511, and argued that whatever respondent had done to her husband it amounts to cruelty. We agree with the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case that apart from physical cruelty there can be various forms of mental cruelty, which relates to state of mind. But considering the conduct of the parties in the present case as has been brought on record, we do not find any case of physical or mental cruelty to have been established, committed by the respondent Geeta Rani against her husband. 10. For the reasons as discussed above, we do not find any force in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.