Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 674 (MP)

Archana Tripathi v. Chandrakant Tripathi

2013-06-18

N.K.Gupta

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa in Hindu Maintenance case No.3/2005, whereby the application of the appellant under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter it will be referred to as ‘The Act’) was dismissed. 2. It is admitted that the appellant is wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place in the year 1985 and from marriage since the year 1998, the appellant was not residing with her husband. It is also admitted that the respondent had moved an application under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was dismissed on 24.8.2005. 3. The appellant has moved an application under section 18 of the Act that her marriage took place on 26.5.1985, whereas her Gauna took place on 23.2.1992. Various ceremonies of Thamna-Ramna and Anoni-Pathoni took place on various dates and she remained with her husband for one week, 6 weeks, 8 weeks and 4 months respectively after such ceremonies. The respondent was demanding dowry etc. and therefore, he got the ornaments of the appellant stolen in the month of January, 1998 and ultimately, the appellant was beaten by the respondent and she was bound to leave the house of the respondent on 9.3.1998. She went to the house of her parents at Bokaro (Bihar). She remained there upto January, 2004. Thereafter, she was summoned by the concerned Court in the proceedings under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Interim maintenance was granted in that proceeding. Under such circumstances, she prayed for maintenance under section 18 of the Act. 4. The respondent in its reply denied all the allegations. He has pleaded that on 9.3.1998 sister of the appellant came to met her. She did not take the appellant with her but, thereafter the appellant absconded from the house. The respondent took a legal proceeding. However, he could not get any decree of judicial separation. There is no cognate reason with the appellant to get maintenance without living with the respondent and therefore, it was prayed that the application filed by the appellant may be dismissed. 5. The learned Additional District Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa, after framing the issues and recording the evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the application filed by the appellant. 6. There is no cognate reason with the appellant to get maintenance without living with the respondent and therefore, it was prayed that the application filed by the appellant may be dismissed. 5. The learned Additional District Judge, Mauganj, District Rewa, after framing the issues and recording the evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the application filed by the appellant. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. 7. In the present matter it was only question to be decided as to whether the applicant had sufficient ground to get maintenance without living with her husband. It was for the appellant to prove that she had cognate reason to reside with her parents and to get maintenance from her husband. The appellant left the house of the respondent on 9.3.1998. It was for the appellant to prove that she was harassed by the respondent in the period when she resided in the house of the respondent. The appellant has wisely drafted her application of maintenance, so that she claimed so many ceremonies after her marriage. However, neither such ceremonies are provided in the Hindu Marriage Act, nor the appellant could prove any custom for such ceremonies. It is apparent from her own pleadings that Gauna took place on 23.2.1992 and in between 23.2.1992 and 13.12.1997 i.e. in the period of 5 years, the appellant resided in the house of the respondent only for few weeks, which indicates that she was not interested to reside with the respondent in a proper manner. According to her pleadings, she went to the house of the respondent on 13.12.1997 and again within three months, she left the house of the respondent. She did not plead about any harassment and dowry demand in the period of February, 1992 upto December, 1997. It was not possible for any husband to harass the wife within three months of her stay in the house. 8. It is strange that after leaving the house of the respondent, the appellant neither lodged any FIR about the harassment at the Police Station Hanumana or the police station, which had the jurisdiction to the place where she was residing with her parents. Archana (P.W.1) has stated that she wrote a complaint to the police and despatched it by post but, no such pleading has been done about lodging the FIR in such a manner. Archana (P.W.1) has stated that she wrote a complaint to the police and despatched it by post but, no such pleading has been done about lodging the FIR in such a manner. Looking to the variance between pleading and proof, it is apparent that the appellant Archana is telling a falsehood to that fact. The witnesses Ramashray Shukla (P.W.1) and Rajnish Kumar (P.W.2) were examined to show that the appellant was beaten by the respondent. She suffered so many injuries and she was ousted from the house. Ramashray Shukla was no where related either to the appellant or to the respondent. He could not tell any reason as to how he could remember the incident which was committed with a stranger woman, of the year 1998 in the year 2006 and when he was not known to the appellant then, how the appellant could approach to the witnesses Ramashray Shukla or Rajnish Kumar, so that they could come to give their evidence. Looking to their conduct and description about the incident, it would be apparent that these two witnesses are cooked witnesses and their testimony cannot be believed. 9. Under such circumstances, where the appellant did not take any step soon after her ouster from the house of the respondent, which indicates that neither she was harassed nor she was ousted. Looking to her statement and pleadings, it is apparent that she did not want to reside in the house of the respondent and she left the house of the respondent to prosecute her studies. Looking to her conduct, she did not reside with her husband for few weeks in 5 years of her Gauna and when she was taken to her husband’s house in December, 1997 then, within a span of three months, she left her house. Looking to the entire conduct of the appellant, it is apparent that she was not at all willing to reside with the respondent and she created a false story of harassment and ouster. 10. Under such circumstances, the appellant could not prove that she had a cognate reason to get the maintenance from the respondent, without residing with him. 11. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly dismissed her application for maintenance under section 18 of the Act. The appellant could not establish any reason by which the appeal filed by the appellant could be accepted. 11. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly dismissed her application for maintenance under section 18 of the Act. The appellant could not establish any reason by which the appeal filed by the appellant could be accepted. Under such circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed with cost. Parties shall bear their own costs. 12. A copy of the judgment and appellate decree be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.