Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 163 (RAJ)

Sheelu w/o Amar Singh v. Amar Singh s/o Lal Singh

2016-01-27

VINEET KOTHARI

body2016
ORDER : Dr. Vineet Kothari, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-wife-Smt. Sheelu d/o Shri Chattar Singh in the present matrimonial dispute, who married to the respondent No.1-Amar Singh in the year 1979. The divorce decree has been granted under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the respondent No.1-Amar Singh, on the ground of cruelty, dessertion and adultery of the appellant-wife-Smt. Sheelu. The allegations and averments of the respondent No.1-husbandAmar Singh in the plaint under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 are that she was in illicit relationship with the respondent No.2-Bhikh Singh. 2. The allegations and averments of the respondent No.1-husbandAmar Singh in the plaint under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 are that she was in illicit relationship with the respondent No.2-Bhikh Singh. 2. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in the order dated 18.08.2007 in divorce petition No.14/2005, Amar Singh v. Smt.Sheelu & Anr., are quoted below for ready reference:- rudh la[;k 1%& vk;k foi{kh&1 >xM+kyw fdLe dh gksdj mldk izkFkhZ ds izfr O;ogkj Bhd ugha jgrk gS\ bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkje izkFkhZ ;kph vejflag ij Fkk ftlus Lo;a ds 'kiFk i= esa vizkFkhZ ua0 1 Jherh 'khyw dks >xM+kyw izo`fRr dk gksuk crk;k gS ,oa viuh vksj ls is'k fd;k x;k xokg ekuflag ,0M0 2 us Hkh vizkFkhZ Jherh 'khyw dks >xM+kyw izo`fRr dk gksuk crk;k gSA mldk O;ogkj izkFkhZ vejflag ds izfr Bhd ugha gksuk nksuksa xokgku us crk;k gSA bu xokgksa ds bl rudh ds laca/k esa 'kiFk i= ij fn;s x;s c;kuksa dk [kaMu muds ftjg ds c;kuksa ls ugha gks ik;k gSA izkFkhZ us 19 o"kksZa ls vizkFkhZ dk mlls vyx jguk crk;k gSA bl rF; dks vizkFkhZ us ftjg ds c;kuksa esa Lohdkj fd;k gSA mlus ftjg ds c;ku esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd ;g lgh gS fd fnukad 26-01-1986 ds ckn esa vejflag ds ikl dHkh ugha jghA bl xokg Jherh 'khyw ds mDr c;ku ls ;g ckr Li"V gks tkrh gS fd og izkFkhZ vejflag ds ikl fnukad 26-01-1986 ds ckn dHkh Hkh ugha jghA og fnukad 26-01-1986 ls vejflag ls vyx fuokZg dj jgh gSA izkFkhZ xokgku ds c;kuksa ls ;g rudh izkFkhZ ds i{k esa lkfcr gks tkrh gSA vr% rudh la[;k 1 dk fu.kZ; izkFkhZ ds i{k esa vkSj vizkFkhZ ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA rudh la[;k 2%& vk;k foi{kh&1 fcuk fdlh ;qfDr ;qDr dkj.kksa ls vius ifr dks NksM+dj vU;= pyh xbZ gS\ bl fcUnq dks lkfcr djus dk nkf;Ro ;kph ij FkkA ;kph vejflag ,oa xokg ekuflag ds }kjk izLrqr 'kiFk i=ksa esa vafdr rF;ksa ls ;g rudh izkFkhZ us vius i{k esa lkfcr dj nh gSA buds ftjg ds c;kuksa ls 'kiFk i= esa vafdr rF;ksa dk [kaMu ugha gks ik;k gSA bl laca/k esa fyf[kr cgl ds vUrxZr Hkh ;g fuosnu fd;k x;k gS fd ifr iRuh dkQh yacs le; rd vyx vyx jg jgs gks rks mls rkykd ;kfpdk dk fof/k lEer dkj.k ekuk x;k gSA bl ekeys esa v;kph Jherh 'khyw us fnukad 26-01-1986 ls vius ifr ls vyx jgus ds rF; dk ftjg ds c;kuksa esa Lohdkj fd;k gS blls ;g Li"V gS fd og fcuk fdlh ;qfDr ;qDr dkj.k ds vius ifr ds ?kj dks NksM+dj vu;= fuokZg dj jgh gSA bl izdkj ls ;g rudh izkFkhZ ds i{k esa lkfcr gks tkrh gSA bldk fu.kZ; izkFkhZ ds i{k esa vkSj vizkFkhZ ds fo:) fd;k tkrk gSA rudh la[;k 3%& vk;k foi{kh&1 Hkh[kflag ¼foi{kh&2½ ds lkFk vuSfrd laca/k gS rFkk mlds lkFk uktk;t laca/kksa ds pyrs ,d iq= gS o og tkjrkiw.kZ thou O;rhr dj jgh gS\ bl rudh dks lkfcr djus dk nkf;Ro ;kph ij Fkk mlus Lo;a }kjk is'k 'kiFk i= ,0M0 1 esa vafdr rF; ls ;g lkfcr dj fn;k gS fd Jherh 'khyw fnukad 26-01-1986 ls mldk ?kj NksM+dj pyh xbZ gS vkSj mlds i'pkr~ og vius firk vkSj HkkbZ ds ?kj ij jg jgh gSA ;kph us mldk Hkh[kflag ds lkFk uktk;t laca/k gksuk crk;k gS ftlls ,d iq= dk tUe gqvk gSA Jherh 'khyw ds iq= dks ;kph vejflag vius va'k ls gksuk Lohdkj ugha djrk gSA ,slk gh rF; ekuflag ,0M0 2 ds c;kuksa ls Li"V gqvk gSA gkykafd vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 Jherh 'khyw us bl izdkj ds vkjksiksa dks xyr gksuk crk;k gS ysfdu mlus ftjg esa ;g lgh gksuk crk;k gS fd mlds ckn Hkh[kflag vkSj og rFkk mldk firk tSrlj vk;s Fks blls ;g Li"V gS fd Hkh[kflag ls Jherh 'khyw ds voS/k laca/k LFkkfir Fks vkSj jgs gSA ;g fcUnq izkFkhZ xokgku ds c;kuksa ls izkFkhZ d i{k esa lkfcr gks tkrk gSA rudh la[;k 4%& vk;k izkFkhZ fookg foPNsn dh fMdzh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ izkFkhZ ds i{k esa rudh uEcj 1&2&3 lkfcr gks xbZ gS vkSj vizkFkhZ fnukad 26-01-1986 ls izkFkhZ ls fcuk ;qfDr ;qDr dkj.k ds vius ifr dk ?kj NksM+dj chdkusj esa jg jgh gS] brus yacs le; ls ;kph vkSj v;kph la[;k 1 dk vyx vyx jguk rkykd izkIr djus dk fof/k lEer dkj.k vkSj vf/kdkj gSA bl rF; dks e/;utj j[krs gq, izkFkhZ vejflag dh fookg foPNsn dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj vizkFkhZ Jherh 'khyw ds fo:) fookg foPNsn dh fMdzh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA vkns'k 7- ;kph vejflag }kjk izLrqr ;kfpdk v;kph Jherh 'khyw ds fo:) Lohdkj dh tkdj muds e/; lu~ 1979 esa lEiUu gq, fookg dk foPNsn fd;k tkrk gSA ;kph vejflag ,oa Jherh 'khyw dk ifr iRuh dk fj'rk vkt ls lekIr fd;k tkrk gSA ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks e/;utj j[krs gq, bl ;kfpdk dk [kpkZ viuk viuk ogu djsxkA fMdzh ipkZ blh izdkj cuk;k tkosA Sd/- ¼Hkjrjke ehuk½ vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] jk;flaguxj ftyk Jhxaxkuxj½ 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife, Mr. Moti Singh submitted that the findings of the learned court below on issue No.3 about adultery are not sustainable because the birth of the son to the appellant-wife-Smt.Sheelu on 23.09.1986 was after about seven months and 29 days from the date when the appellant-wife had left the matrimonial home last on 26.01.1986, and therefore, merely on that basis, the ground of adultery could not be held to be proved, as has been held by the learned court below. However, he submitted that the parties are living separately since 1986 and there were no proceedings initiated by either of the parties under Section 9 of the Act of 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights in the present case. 4. On the other hand, Dr. Shailendra Kala, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-husband submitted that the divorce decree given in favour of the respondent No.1-husbandAmar Singh on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and adultery and from the evidence available on record, these grounds were well established by the respondent No.1-husband-Amar Singh and the divorce decree deserves to be sustained on all these grounds. He has also brought to the notice of the Court an order passed by the learned Family Court, Bikaner passed on 09.05.2013 in Misc.Criminal No.1451/2012, Smt. Sheelu & Anr. v. Amar Singh, whereby the claim of the appellant-wife, Smt.Sheelu for maintenance from the respondent No.1- husband-Amar Singh was also denied by the learned Family Court, Bikaner on account of her live-in relationship with the respondent No.2-Bhikh Singh. 5. v. Amar Singh, whereby the claim of the appellant-wife, Smt.Sheelu for maintenance from the respondent No.1- husband-Amar Singh was also denied by the learned Family Court, Bikaner on account of her live-in relationship with the respondent No.2-Bhikh Singh. 5. The relevant extract of the order dated 09.05.2013 of the learned Family Court, Bikaner is also quoted below for ready reference:- 9- bl izdkj nskuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ls ;g rF; iwjh rjg lkfcr gS fd 'khyw vejflag dh oS/k fookfgrk iRuh gSA ;g rF; Hkh iwjh rjg lkfcr gS fd vejflag mls 450@& :i;s izfrekg Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh jkf'k vnk dj jgk gSA vejflag dh ftgj esa ;g Hkh lkfcr gS fd 1998 ds le; mldh vk; 1200@& :i;s izfrekg Fkh vkSj orZeku esa 12000@& :i;s izfrekg gSA 'khyw dh ftjg ls ;g lkfcr gS fd vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] jk;flaguxj ds }kjk o nksuksa ds chp gq, fookg dks fookg foPNsn dh fMdzh ls fo|fVr dj fn;k x;k gSA 'khyw dk ;g dFku gS fd bl fMdzh ds fo:) ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa dk;Zokgh dj j[kh gS] ijUrq mldh dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; 'khyw us is'k ugha dh gSA 'khyw ;g Hkh ekurh gS fd mldk yM+dk vferflag gS vksj mlus vferflag ds Hkj.k iks"k.k dh ekax dHkh Hkh vejflag ls ugha dh gSA vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] jk;flaguxj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh dh izfr;kWa is'k gqbZ gS vkSj bl fu.kZ; esa vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k us ;g ekuk gS fd foi{kh la[;k ,d >xM+kyw fdLe dh gS vkSj ;g Hkh ekuk gS fd Hkh[kflag ds lkFk mldk voS/k laca/k gqvk ftlls ,d iq= dk tUe gqvk vkSj bu rhuksa gh vk/kkjksa ij nksuksa ds e/; gq, fookg dks fo|fVr dj fn;k x;kA vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k ds }kjk tks ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk x;k gS vkSj flfoy izd`fr ds ekeys esa fudkyk x;k fu"d"kZ QkStnkh ekeyksa esa ck/;dkjh gksrk gS blfy, bl fu.kZ; o fMdzh ls ;g lkfcr gS fd 'khyw us vej flag dk ifjR;tU; dj j[kk gS vkSj og tkjrk dh n'kk esa Hkh[kflag ds lkFk jg jgh gS ftlls mls ,d iq= Hkh mRiUu gqvk gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa 'khyw ds }kjk izLrqr Hkj.k iks"k.k dh jkf'k c<+kus dk izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS o vejflag ds }kjk ds }kjk Hkj.k iks"k.k dh jkf'k can djus dk izkFkZuk Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 10- ifj.kker% izR;FkhZ 'khyw dh vksj ls Hkj.k iks"k.k dh jkf'k c<+kus dk izkFkZuk i= [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vejflag ds }kjk izLrqr Hkj.k iks"k.k dh jkf'k can djus dk izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] jk;flaguxj] ftyk Jhxaxkuxj }kjk ikfjr rykd dh fMdzh ds vkns'k fnukad 18-08-2007 Hkj.k iks"k.k HkRrk dh jkf'k can dh tkrh gSA Sd/- ¼gjh dqekj xksnkjk½ U;k;k/kh'k] ikfjokfjd U;k;ky;] chdkusjA** 6. The copy of the aforesaid judgment dated 09.05.2013 is taken on record. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the evidence available on record, this Court is satisfied that the divorce decree given by the learned court below deserves to be sustained, and there is no contra evidence available before this Court to take a different view of the matter and restore the matrimony between these two parties, who are admittedly living separately since a long period since 1986 and almost 30 years have passed by since then. The parties, who are now in the age group of old age, namely, respondent husband aged 60 years and the appellant-wife aged about 52 years. 8. In view of the nature of allegations and the evidence brought on record, this Court does not find it a fit case of even making efforts through mediation for restoration of matrimonial home in the present case, even if the findings on issue No.3 recorded by the learned court below is treated as watered down on the basis of the submissions made by Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-wife, and the divorce decree deserves to be upheld, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal of the appellant wife is dismissed and the impugned decree of divorce granted by the learned court below is upheld. No costs. Copy of this order may be sent to the concerned parties as well as the learned courts below forthwith.