Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1050 (MP)

Aslam Siddique v. Samreen Khan

2017-10-04

ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA, S.K.GANGELE

body2017
JUDGMENT : S.K. Gangele, J. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30/08/2013 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 414-A/2011. 2. The respondent filed a suit for dissolution of marriage performed between the appellant and respondent. The trial court decreed the suit by the impugned judgment. 3. The respondent pleaded that she was married with the appellant on 09/07/2006 in accordance with Muslim Rituals at Bhopal. At the time of marriage (Nikah), family members had given sufficient dowry. The respondent is only daughter of her father and mother. After marriage, the respondent lived with the family of the appellant upto April, 2007. The appellant left for Mumbai after 15 days of marriage. He used to come for 2-4 days in one or two months. Appellant and his family members have tortured the respondent and demand of dowry was also made. A proposal was made by the family members of respondent to sell the flat which was in the name of father of the respondent. The appellant demanded amount of Rs. 6 lacs. Family members had also made demand of dowry from the respondent. The respondent was not provided proper care in the in-laws house and in April 2007 respondent had gone to Mumbai with the appellant, however, the appellant tortured the respondent at Mumbai and beaten her. Abortion was also done. Thereafter, the respondent had communicated all the facts to parents on 18/08/2007 and she left Mumbai with her parents. Report was lodged at the Police Station and case of demand of dowry was registered against the appellant on the report. The respondent also pleaded that she was not given any maintenance neither the amount of meher fixed at the time of marriage. 4. The appellant in his written statement denied the pleadings of the respondent-wife. He pleaded that he is willing to live with the respondent she has left the house without any reason. She was working at Mumbai and she does not want to live with the appellant. 5. Before the trial court the appellant examined himself and the respondent herself. One witness was examined on behalf of the respondent. Some documents were also produced. She was working at Mumbai and she does not want to live with the appellant. 5. Before the trial court the appellant examined himself and the respondent herself. One witness was examined on behalf of the respondent. Some documents were also produced. The trial court has held that the appellant neglected and failed to provide maintenance to the respondent for a period of two years, hence, the respondent is entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage in accordance with section 2(i)(ii) of Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has pleaded that the respondent does not mention correct sections before the trial court. The trial court has not considered the relevant provisions of the Act of 1939. There is no evidence that the appellant neglected the respondent and failed to provide her maintenance, hence, the decree passed by the trial court is against the law. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is in accordance with law. There is sufficient evidence to prove the fact that the appellant neglected the respondent and failed to provide her maintenance for a period of two years. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following judgments:- 1. Mt. Noor Bibi v. Pir Bux AIR (195) 8. 2. A. Yousuf Rawther v. Sowramma AIR 1971 Kerala 261. 3. ILR 2003 Karnataka 2096. 8. The trial court framed three issues that whether the appellant had neglected the respondent in regard to payment of maintenance and whether the appellant without any reasonable cause deprived the respondent of matrimonial pleasure and whether the appellant had practiced cruelty with the respondent. The trial court answered issues no. 2 and 3 against the respondent in negative and issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent and granted decree declaring the marriage dissolved. 9. The respondent/plaintiff wife deposed that her marriage was performed on 9th July, 2006 in accordance with Sunni muslim rituals at Bhopal. Certified copy of Nikahnama is Ex. P/1. At the time of marriage Rs. 51,000/- was fixed as the amount of Meher, it was payable on demand. I had made number of demands to the defendant-appellant for payment of meher including a notice, however, the amount was not paid to me. Certified copy of Nikahnama is Ex. P/1. At the time of marriage Rs. 51,000/- was fixed as the amount of Meher, it was payable on demand. I had made number of demands to the defendant-appellant for payment of meher including a notice, however, the amount was not paid to me. Sufficient dowry was paid at the time of marriage by my father including jewellery of gold and silver and other house hold articles. The appellant kept the gold and silver ornament in a bank locker of UTI Bank which is in the possession of the appellant right now. I had asked return of jewellery but the appellant had not returned the same to me. I am the only daughter of my parents and the appellant wants to take the property of my parents. The appellant had treated me with cruelty he had also beaten me. Family members of the appellant had also misbehaved with me. After ten months of marriage I had gone with the appellant to Mumbai, however I returned back on 18 August, 2007 from Mumbai and thereafter, FIR was lodged at Women Police Station. Case was also registered against the appellant. She further deposed that the appellant used to tell her that he would not give her divorce and he would take possession of the property of her father and mother. She further deposed in para 9 of her examination in chief that the appellant had not fulfilled her daily requirements and since 18th August 2007 he has not paid any maintenance and she had not received any love and affection from the appellant. After marriage the appellant wants to keep him in such a situation so he could get property of my parents. She denied the fact that she was working at Mumbai. In her cross examination she admits that she has not received Jewellery, however, she received other house hold items which were given by her parents in the marriage. She has specifically deposed that the appellant wants to destroy her life and career. 10. Another witness P.W./2 Syed Muneesh Akhatar deposed that he is living in the mohalla of the respondent. She returned back after one year of marriage because the appellant used to beat her and the family members of the appellant used to misbehave with the respondent. 11. 10. Another witness P.W./2 Syed Muneesh Akhatar deposed that he is living in the mohalla of the respondent. She returned back after one year of marriage because the appellant used to beat her and the family members of the appellant used to misbehave with the respondent. 11. The appellant in his deposition deposed that against me and my family members, the respondent filed a case of domestic violence and the court dismissed the case and discharged me. Against the judgment an appeal was filed which was also dismissed. He further deposed that he wants to keep the respondent with him and the respondent was working as Business Development Manager at Cojansa India. He in his cross-examination admitted that he has not paid the amount of Meher of Rs. 51,000/- even after demand. He admitted the fact that a notice was served on him demanding meher and he replied the same to the effect that the demand of meher is not proper. In his cross examination he further admitted that since 18/07/2007 I did not make any arrangement for maintenance of the respondent because no such demand was made by her and there is no necessity for her because she is in service. He has further admitted that the respondent served a notice of maintenance Ex. P/3 on him and he replied the same. Annexure-P/5 is the reply. He mentioned the fact in reply that demand of maintenance is not proper. 12. From the evidence of the appellant, it is an admitted fact that he has not paid the amount of Meher even after demand and the Meher is payable on demand. In reply to the notice, it is mentioned that the demand of Meher or maintenance is without any logic because the appellant is willing to keep the respondent with him. 13. From the evidence of the appellant himself, it is an admitted fact that he has not paid the maintenance and the amount of Meher to the respondent since 18/07/2007, hence in our opinion the trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty that he has neglected and failed to provide maintenance for a period of two years to the respondent wife and rightly granted decree declaring the marriage as dissolved. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent is only daughter of her parents, hence, it cannot be ruled out that the appellant wants to get property of the parents of the respondent. The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that before the trial court correct facts have not been mentioned by the respondent in her plaint, hence the decree is liable to be set-aside, could not be accepted because even incorrect mentioning of provisions of law does not render a suit not maintainable. The trial court has specifically held that the appellant has failed to provide maintenance to the respondent and he has neglected the respondent. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts, in our opinion, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is based on the proper appreciation of evidence. We do not find any merit in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.