Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1155 (MP)

Guddi v. Naresh Kumar Bohre

2014-09-16

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, decided case No. 146-A/2009 (HMA) on 22nd December, 2010 and allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and granted decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. 3. The appellant/wife has filed this appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and assailed the judgment on several grounds before the trial Court. It was not disputed that the appellant married to the respondent on 14.4.1990 at village Tharet, district Datia by observing Hindu rites. 4. After the marriage, they live together for one year. As per the allegations. After four years of their marriage, the respondent/husband alleged cruelty and also adultery. The non-applicant/ wife denied the allegations and she alleged that the applicant/husband has illicit relation with his sister-in-law (Bhabhi). The learned Trial Court after adducing evidence held that the non-applicant/respondent is leading a adulterous life. She has deprived the respondent/husband cohabitation and, therefore, it amounts to cruelty. The learned trial Court found the allegations of the non- applicant/wife not proved and the applicant's allegations are proved and granted the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. 5. We have gone through the record and the impugned judgment. 6. After one year of the marriage, the husband had to live separately from his parents because of the ill- treatment by the non-applicant/wife to his parents. In the year 1995, the non-applicant/wife left the matrimonial home and started living with her parents. In her statement she has not only alleged the applicant/ husband of having illicit relationship which his Bhabhi (sister-in-law Suman) but also narrated that the applicant and his Bhabhi forcibly made her to take some tablets which resulted her abortion. This fact was not pleaded in her reply. 7. At the other hand, the respondent/husband has alleged that Raghavram was frequently coming to meet the non-applicant/wife. Raghavram has been visiting the non-applicant/wife even now. The non-applicant/ wife examined Sudama in her support who is her uncle (mama). Sudama has admitted that Raghavram, a resident of village Tharet is a relative of the non- applicant/wife. He also admits Sangita's name is reflected in the Voter list at village Tharet. He also admits that the respondent with his four brothers are living in a joint family. The non-applicant/ wife examined Sudama in her support who is her uncle (mama). Sudama has admitted that Raghavram, a resident of village Tharet is a relative of the non- applicant/wife. He also admits Sangita's name is reflected in the Voter list at village Tharet. He also admits that the respondent with his four brothers are living in a joint family. The other brothers and their family are residing in one house alongwith his old parents. He also says that the Bhabhi with whom the respondent has alleged to have illicit relation has a daughter who is 25 years of old. The appellant/wife is failed to prove the averments. In this respect, the allegations brought by the non-applicant/wife against her husband of such a nature amounts to 'cruelty'. The fact that the appellant/wife left her matrimonial home in the year 1995 and deprived the non- applicant/husband cohabitation also amounts to 'cruelty'. 8. The conduct of non-applicant/wife shows instances of ill-treatment, use of abusive language and allegation which amounts to 'cruelty' by casting expression on the applicant that he has illicit relationship with his Bhabhi. The effect of which is demoralizing the applicant/husband against whom the allegations are levelled causing him mental cruelty. 9. In Sumar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh, (2007) 4 SCC 511 , it has held by the Apex Court that, "Cruelty is something that cannot be explicitly cast in a particular mode, as regards what is and what may not amount to cruelty. The Supreme Court has stated that, however as a result of some situations, the marriage may become a fiction, and though supported by a legal hue, such a bond ought to be severed." 10. From the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has considered all the aspects in detail. There seems to be no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. 11. Before parting with the case, keeping in view the status of the appellant/ respondent and the economic status of the parties and following the principles laid down in U. Sree Vs. U Srinivas reported in: (2013) 2 S.C.C. 114 , we fix the one time alimony to the extend of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lacs only) which could be just and proper in the circumstances. U Srinivas reported in: (2013) 2 S.C.C. 114 , we fix the one time alimony to the extend of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lacs only) which could be just and proper in the circumstances. In this regard, order dated 10.08.2007 passed in Case No. 140/2007 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. may be looked into for ascertaining the income of the respondent/ husband. 12. In the result, we upheld the judgment and maintain the decree passed by the trial court on 22.12.2010 subjected to the following conditions :- (1) That the, appellant/wife is entitled for alimony to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rs. Three lacs only). (2) That the, respondent/ husband will deposit 50% of the amount within 30 days from this order. (3) Another installment 25% will have to be deposited by respondent/ husband within three months thereafter. (4) The last installment has to be deposited by respondent/ husband within period of another three months. (5) This amount will be deposited in the Trial Court. The appellant/wife will not be entitled to receive any other maintenance. (6) On deposit of the same 50% of the total amount be paid to the appellant/ wife to meet her immediate needs and rest amount be deposited in any fixed deposit in her name in any Nationalized Bank in such a manner that she receives quarterly interests in her savings account of the deposited amount. (7) If the respondent/ husband fails to deposit the same the grant of decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband will have no force. 13. With this directions we disposed of the appeal. No order as to cost.