Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 337 (RAJ)

Reena @ Radha Goyal v. Arvind Kumar Jain

2010-02-09

A.M.KAPADIA, GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble VYAS, J.-In this civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, appellant-non-applicant wife is challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case No.62/2002, upon which, application filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the respondent-applicant husband was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed by the respondent-applicant husband before the Family Court, Jodhpur, in which, it was stated that his marriage was solemnized with the non-applicant-appellant on 19.02.2000 and, before his marriage, betrothal ceremony was solemnized on 29.11.1999. On that occasion, his father and mother gave some ornaments weighing 4 tola and, so also, spent huge amount to celebrate the function. On 29.01.2000, father of the appellant-non-applicant died. Thereafter, on 19.02.2000, marriage was solemnized and, after marriage, non-applicant-appellant and applicant-respondent lived together for about three months. Thereafter, due to cruel attitude of the non-applicant-appellant wife towards her husband and family members of the in-laws, it was not possible for the applicant to live with her. 3. As per allegations levelled by the applicant-respondent husband, appellant-non-applicant's cruelty has gone up to the extent of threatening that she would commit suicide and all efforts were made by him and his family for conciliation but all the efforts failed and cruelty of the non-applicant heightened to the extent that she even started condemning her father and mother for destroying her life by marrying her with the applicant-respondent whereas she dreamt of being married by her parents in an affluent family having wealth, bungalow and car but the applicant is working in the shop of his brother from where also the non-applicant-appellant tried to detach the I applicant and when he refused to do so, then, she used filthy words and called him "namard" (impotent) but he cannot do anything. 4. As per allegation levelled by the applicant in the application filed for divorce, it was specifically stated that after three months from the date of marriage, the conduct of the non-applicant wife became very serious and quarrelsome and she started threatening that she will leave the house and live in her parental house. 4. As per allegation levelled by the applicant in the application filed for divorce, it was specifically stated that after three months from the date of marriage, the conduct of the non-applicant wife became very serious and quarrelsome and she started threatening that she will leave the house and live in her parental house. After six months, one day, in the night, at about 2 O'clock, she started quarreling seriously with the applicant and rushed up the terrace and tried to jump from terrace to commit suicide. At that time, with folded hands, the applicant-respondent made prayer not to do so and, at that time, all the family members also awakened and they also saw that this act was committed by the wife of the applicant. 5. After the above incident, so many times, she threatened the applicant-respondent that she will commit suicide. Thereafter, on 09.12.2000, their son Chirag was born. Due to birth of applicant's son Chirag, for 3 - 4 months the atmosphere remained peaceful but, thereafter, again, the conduct of the non-applicant wife became the same harsh and cruel which was in existence prior to the birth of their son Chirag. Time and again, the non-applicant called the applicant namard (impotent) and, at last, on 26.06.2001, she left the house at about 12 O'clock and went to her parents' house saying that she will not come back and live with him. 6. Upon the above incident of leaving the house, the applicant called his brother Sriyans and, thereafter, all the facts were narrated to the brother of the non-applicant. Upon information given by the applicant-respondent to the brother of the appellant-non-applicant, her brother came to the house of the applicant and started quarrel with the family members and the applicant. He also threatened that the applicant and his family members will have to face the consequences because the applicant's conduct towards his sister is not good. At that time, it was requested by the applicant to the brother of the non-applicant to ask his sister to live in the family with good conduct because her conduct is not good and she is creating unhealthy atmosphere in the family. 7. As per the applicant, he went to the house of his in-laws with his brother Sriyans for bringing his wife back to home but she refused to come with him and started quarreling with him. 7. As per the applicant, he went to the house of his in-laws with his brother Sriyans for bringing his wife back to home but she refused to come with him and started quarreling with him. But, next day, his brother Dinesh came with his wife Reena and left her in the house of the applicant. Thereafter, all efforts were made by the family members of the non-applicant and they tried to soothe her and asked her to maintain harmony in the family but, again, within some days, her conduct became quarrelsome towards family members and applicant and, on 04.08.2001, on the occasion of rakshabandhan, non-applicant raised grievous quarrel and said that she had never seen such an impotent man in her life. Upon this quarrel, while taking the non-applicant on scooter with him, the applicant proceeded to go to the house of his in-laws but, in the way, near the veterinary hospital, non-applicant told him that she had consumed some tablet, therefore, her condition is not good. Upon this, applicant turned the scooter but, all of a sudden, appellant raised voice and said that she will live at her parents' house otherwise she will jump from the scooter. In these compelling circumstances, the applicant-respondent left the appellant wife at the house of his in-laws. Upon reaching there, when information was given by the applicant that she has taken some tablets, then, immediately they went to the house of Dr. Gupta from where she was brought to M.G. Hospital where she remained admitted for 3 - 4 hours. 8. The mother and brother of the respondent-applicant made a complaint to the father and mother of the appellant-non-applicant that her conduct is not good and she is unnecessarily creating unhealthy atmosphere in the house and she has broken articles and continuously asking that she does not want to live with him. 9. On 28.09.2001, she was examined to ascertain her mental equilibrium but she was found O.K. And, on 13.10.2001, when their son Chirag became ill, then, he was brought to the house of dr. J.P. Soni and, in the way, non-applicant asked to stop the scooter and jumped from the scooter with son and forcibly took their son and without going to the house of the doctor she asked that she is going to Jodhpur. J.P. Soni and, in the way, non-applicant asked to stop the scooter and jumped from the scooter with son and forcibly took their son and without going to the house of the doctor she asked that she is going to Jodhpur. At that time, while calling his brother Sriyans and mother on telephone, all efforts were made by the family members for reconciling her but she refused to live with the applicant. In that event, his elder brother Sriyans while taking her in a vehicle went to the Mahila Thana in the morning where not only the Inspector of the police but all the family members made efforts for conciliation; and, thereafter, appellant-non-applicant and respondent-applicant came back to the house but while entering in the house she threw her son on the floor and ran towards terrace saying that she will commit suicide. At that time, uncle of the non-applicant Brijpal Jain took the non-applicant appellant and son Chirag to his house and tried to persuade her to understand but she refused to live with the applicant and asked that she will not live with her husband and, in the morning, at about 11 A.M. on 08.11.2001 she left the house. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the judgment under challenge. 11. In this case, before the Family Court, non-applicant-appellant admitted the allegation of cruelty levelled against her by the applicant husband and did not controvert the aforesaid allegations. Learned Family Court has observed in the impugned judgment in para 2 at page 9 as under: 12. Upon the aforesaid reply, statement of non-applicant appellant was recorded as N.A.W.-1 in which, again, she admitted the allegations. In his application for divorce, applicant-respondent categorically set out the circumstances, in which, it is apparent that there is always apprehension of some danger due to the cruel and harsh behaviour of the non-applicant which may engulf the entire family of the applicant-respondent in some trouble. In the circumstances, therefore, the learned Judge, Family Court arrived at the conclusion that due to the cruel treatment of the non-applicant wife (appellant herein) it is no longer possible for the applicant and non-applicant to live in cohabitation as husband and wife. 13. In the circumstances, therefore, the learned Judge, Family Court arrived at the conclusion that due to the cruel treatment of the non-applicant wife (appellant herein) it is no longer possible for the applicant and non-applicant to live in cohabitation as husband and wife. 13. Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that although the allegations levelled by the applicant-respondent were not controverted before the Family Court by the appellant, nevertheless, the appellant opposed the dissolution of her marriage with the applicant and she expressed her desire to live with the applicant cannot be accepted at this stage on account of the fact that before the Family Court the appellant clearly admitted the allegations of cruelty. In this view of the matter, we do not find any error or illegality in the finding arrived at by the learned Family Court. This appeal is, therefore, bereft of any merit. 14. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that liberty may be given to the appellant to approach the Family Court for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the event such an application is moved by the appellant for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, learned Family Court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 15. With the aforesaid observation, this miscellaneous appeal is hereby I dismissed.