Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2570 (RAJ)

Magan Kanwar v. Shyam Singh

2017-11-23

INDERJEET SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Inderjeet Singh, J. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 22.03.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Misc. Case No. 60/2003 by which the application submitted by the respondent-husband filed under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed and ex-partee decree of divorce was granted by learned trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-husband filed a divorce petition before the learned District Judge, Sawai Madhopur under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant/wife with averments that he got married with the appellant 01.12.1997 and due to their wedlock, three children were born. It was also pleaded that earlier he was serving in Jaipur Metals and after closure of the said industry, he was unemployed. The appellant-wife used to complain that she earns as she was in service and he was enjoying without any work. It was further stated in the application that he was having sufficient means for their livelihood by agriculture land, hence, he advised the appellant to get her transfer at Niwai so that they may live happily. On 25.07.2000 the appellant/wife left the house of respondent/husband for living with her parents. It was also stated that he tried his best to settle the dispute but the appellant/wife refused to accompany him, as such he filed the divorce petition and prayed for a decree of divorce. 3. The notice of the said petition was issued to the appellant but she could not appear before the Court below because she was given beatings by the appellant and in such circumstance she sent a letter to the court below explaining entire facts that the petition is not maintainable. It was stated in the letter that there is every chance of mishappening to her life, thus she is unable to appear before the court. 4. The learned trial court considering the evidence submitted by the respondent/husband allowed the application filed by the respondent/husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and granted the decree of divorce vide order dated 22.03.2006. 5. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. for taking the additional documents on record. I have considered the application and also considered the document Annexure-II filed alongwith the application under Order 41, Rule 27. 5. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. for taking the additional documents on record. I have considered the application and also considered the document Annexure-II filed alongwith the application under Order 41, Rule 27. In the said document, the respondent - Shyam Singh has submitted an application to the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur stating therein that after passing the decree of divorce, both the appellant and respondent has entered into a compromise and in future they wants to live together. The appellant has also filed certain hotel bills of different dates showing that even after the passing of decree of divorce, the appellant and respondents are living together as husband and wife. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application filed by the appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 is allowed and the documents are taken on record. 6. Counsel for the appellant argued that the judgment passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside as neither any issue was framed by the trial court nor any finding was given by the learned trial court. Counsel further submitted that the decree of divorce can only be granted on the grounds mentioned under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 whereas, the learned trial court has not mentioned that on what ground the decree of divorce has been granted. 7. Counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court. 8. Heard counsel for the parties. 9. The contention raised by counsel for the appellant/wife regarding passing of the judgment by the learned trial court without giving any finding deserves to be accepted because a complete reading of the judgment clearly shows that the same has been passed without applying the mind as neither any issue has been framed nor any finding has been given by the trial Court. Apart from this the learned trial court has failed to mention any of the ground on which it has granted the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent-husband. Apart from this, a bare perusal of the documents filed alongwith the application under Order 41, Rule 27, i.e. the compromise deed dated 15.04.2006 shows that the appellant/wife and the respondents/husband again wants to live together as husband and wife. 10. Apart from this, a bare perusal of the documents filed alongwith the application under Order 41, Rule 27, i.e. the compromise deed dated 15.04.2006 shows that the appellant/wife and the respondents/husband again wants to live together as husband and wife. 10. In that view of the matter the appeal filed by the appellant/wife is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court dated 22.3.2006 is quashed and set aside.