Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1063 (MP)

Rashmi Porwal v. Vivek Porwal

2014-08-26

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO

body2014
JUDGMENT S.K. Palo, J. 1. The respondent/husband filed an application under Section 13(1-A) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion against the non applicant/appellant before the Third Additional District Judge, Vidisha. By the impugned judgment dated 24.2.2005, the same has been decreed. Aggrieved by this, the non-applicant/wife has filed this appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. It is not disputed that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 23.06.1997 at Ahmedabad observing Hindu customs. 3. The appellant filed a petition for divorce stating that after their marriage, the non-applicant/wife lived with the husband at Bhind for two months, then at Bhopal for two months at her maternal home. Then she again lived with the applicant husband at Ahmedabad for six months. For the last six years, she has been living at Vidisha serving as Computer Programmer at Ashok Technical Institute and is residing at Sherpura, V.T.I. Road, Vidisha. She had been pressurizing the applicant/husband to live with her at her maternal home at Bhopal. Her parents also assured him that they will fetch a job for the applicant/husband. When the applicant refused the same and did not want to live like a "Ghar Jamai" the non-applicant/wife got annoyed and started behaving in cruel manner. She was not performing her duties and was always insisting to go to her parents home. She started quarrelling with the family members of applicant and misbehaved with them. She also started abusing them. The applicant/husband tried to pacify things but due to the adamant behaviour of the non-applicant nothing positive could come out. Because of her rude behaviour, the family life of the applicant becomes shattered. It was informed to the parents of non-applicant/wife, but they did not help. On the other hand, they demanded the applicant/husband to do according to the wishes of non-applicant. 4. In April, 1998, a child was born. When she got the indication that the applicant/husband will not move to Bhopal, on 27.04.1998, she left for her matrimonial home alongwith her ornaments, clothes and she carried the 16 days old son with her. Since then she did not return to the applicant. A report was lodged by the applicant/husband. Non-applicant/wife lodged a false report of dowry demand against the applicant/husband and his parents. They were taken into custody under Section 498-A of IPC. Since then she did not return to the applicant. A report was lodged by the applicant/husband. Non-applicant/wife lodged a false report of dowry demand against the applicant/husband and his parents. They were taken into custody under Section 498-A of IPC. The actions of non-applicant/wife was cruel mentally and physically. She also filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and another complaint was filed under Section 406 of IPC. The applicant and his family members were harassed. The non-applicant/wife is serving as a Computer Programmer and her earning is Rs. 11,962/- per month. Because of her behaviour, now the applicant and non-applicant cannot live together as husband and wife therefore, the applicant has to dissolve their marriage by passing a decree of divorce. 5. The non-applicant/wife denied all averments and submitted that she has recently joint as Computer Programmer and is earning is Rs. 5,000/- rupees per month. The report lodged by the non-applicant/wife under Section 498-A is true but for this the applicant and his parents are responsible. They have demanded dowry and treated her with cruelty. At the time of marriage, her father had given articles worth of Rs. 5,00,000/- and they were not in a position to give anything more. But the parents of the applicant constantly harassed her demanding dowry. The non-applicant/wife claimed that the presents given to her during the time of marriage was worth Rs. 3,50,000/-. The ornaments valued Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to her by her parents Besides this, Stridhan of Rs. 4,50,000/- was given. All were taken away from her. She demands that in case of a decree of divorce is granted, Rs. 10,00,000/- each be given as alimony to her and her son. It is stated by her that the applicant is serving at Gurgaon, Haryana, in a Tata Telecom Company and is earning Rs. 30,000/- rupees per month. 6. Learned Trial Court after adducing the evidence allowed the petition and granted decree of divorce in favour of the applicant/husband. However, no alimony has been granted. 7. The non-applicant/wife has filed this appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and assailed the impugned judgment on several grounds. 8. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 9. However, no alimony has been granted. 7. The non-applicant/wife has filed this appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and assailed the impugned judgment on several grounds. 8. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 9. The evidence available in the record alongwith the inland letters Exhibit-P-5 to Exhibit P-8 and photographs of Article 'A' to Article 'J' gives a clear picture that the non-applicant/wife has been given due regard and she was not subjected to any cruelty. The letters addressed to the father of the applicant Jugal Porwal by the non-applicant have been very affectionate and does not show any indication of harassment. 10. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the aspects and the statements of the applicant as well as the non-applicant. 11. Having the benefit of noting, the demeanor of the witnesses, the Trial Court is in a better position to appreciate the evidence adduced. The non-applicant/appellant left her matrimonial home on 28.04.1998 and remained at the railway station retiring room. Her father K.C. Choudhary came to the railway station and he took her to lodge a report. The statement of K.C. Chaudhary, NAW-2 also gives an idea that the non-applicant wife left her matrimonial home. There had been several rounds of discussions among the relatives to resolve the issues. 12. There is evidence regarding the abusing or misbehaviour with the non-applicant on which the complaint. A complaint was lodged by the non-applicant under Section 406 of IPC against the applicant and his parents. Because of which, the Ahmedabad Police arrested them. The non-applicant also deprived the applicant/husband to meet his son for six years. All these constitutes cruelty. Smt. Saroj Kumari Vs. Suresh Kumar, 1999 (1) M.P.W.N. 120 can be referred in this regard. 13. The facts and circumstances of the case also disclose that the applicant and non-applicant living with each other is almost impossible. Both the parties in this case are educated, matured and fully comprehend the contemplated parting of ways. Keeping in mind the situation prevailing in this case and the findings given on the basis of the evidence available, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has not erred in granting the decree of divorce. 14. We also considered on the point of the alimony. Keeping in mind the situation prevailing in this case and the findings given on the basis of the evidence available, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has not erred in granting the decree of divorce. 14. We also considered on the point of the alimony. Keeping in view the standard of life being laid by the parties and the education and maintenance of the minor son and also the financial position of the parties, we deem it proper to grant a one time alimony without giving into details of so called Stridhan and other aspects. In Smt. Chand Dhawan Vs. Jawaharalal Dhawan, 1993 AIR SCW 2548, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while passing the decree, the Court has to grant permanent alimony for maintenance. 15. We therefore grant a one time alimony of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lacs only) in favour of non-appellant/wife which shall be deposited before the Family Court, Vidisha in the following manner:- (i) 50 % of this amount has to be deposited within one month from today. (ii) 25 % of the amount has to be deposited within next three months; (iii) Rest 25 % has to be deposited by the respondent/husband within next three months. 16. The Family Court, Vidisha, is directed to see that Rs. 5,00,000/- be kept in fixed deposit in the name of appellant wife in any nationalized bank in such a manner that the non-applicant wife receives the interest through her savings account every month. The rest amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- be paid to the appellant wife by account payee cheque for her immediate needs. 17. If the appellant husband fails to deposit the amount as mentioned above, this decree of divorce would be deemed inoperative. 18. With the above directions, as regarding alimony, we maintain the judgment and order dated 24.12.2005 and dismissed this appeal.