Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 101 (MP)

Anand Mangal Pandey v. Prabhavati Pandey

2018-01-24

ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA, S.K.GANGELE

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.K. Gangele, J. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment 25.09.2012 passed in HMA No. 21-A of 2011. 2. The appellant filed a suit for grant of divorce under Section 13-A of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. He pleaded that the marriage of the appellant with respondent was solemnized in the year 1982 and Gouna was performed in the year of 1994. The respondent filed a complaint before the Police for demand of dowry and cruelty. On this complaint, a criminal case, vide Crime No. 10 of 2000 was registered under Section 498-A/34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against six persons. The appellant and other six persons were acquitted from the charge. 3. Since the year 2000, the respondent has been living with her father and mother. She was getting maintenance. She did not come back with the appellant to perform her marriage obligation. 4. The respondent filed the reply and denied the allegations made in the plaint. She pleaded that when she was living with the appellant he used to beat her and used to give her cruel treatment. Under to certain circumstances, the respondent lodged a report at the Police Station. The respondent filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant opposed the same. The decree of conjugal rights was granted in favour of the respondent. Inspite of that, the appellant did take respondent back at his house. Under duress, the respondent has been living with her parents. The appellant is in service. He is getting salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month. 5. The appellant in his affidavit pleaded same facts as pleaded by him in his plaint. In his cross examination, he admitted the fact that he filed a suit for divorce in the year 2000 against respondent and it was taken back. He admitted the fact that on his application, the suit for divorce was dismissed as withdrawn. He further admitted the fact that the respondent filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. It was decreed and decree was passed against him. He further admitted that he did take any step for taking back his wife with him. He further admitted that after marriage, he did go to the house of the respondent to take her back with him. It was decreed and decree was passed against him. He further admitted that he did take any step for taking back his wife with him. He further admitted that after marriage, he did go to the house of the respondent to take her back with him. He further admitted the fact that he does want to keep the respondent with him because the appellant was sent to jail. Another affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant of Umesh Kumar. He is relative. He deposed the same facts that the appellant was prosecuted in a criminal case. Subsequently, his family members were acquitted. The family members of the appellant are facing mental agony. He further deposed in his cross examination that the appellant has been working in a factory at Raipur. He is getting salary of Rs. 6000-7000 per month. In para 11 of the cross examination, he admitted that the appellant did like the respondent. That is why, he does want to keep her with him and the appellant did go to the house of the respondent to take her back. In para 13 of the cross examination, he admitted the fact that the respondent did misbehave with the appellant. 6. The respondent filed her own affidavit. She deposed that she is willing to perform her marital duties and ready to live with the appellant as his wife. The appellant and his family members made a demand of dowry. There was danger to her life, hence, she left the matrimonial house. The appellant had beaten her for many times. She admitted in her cross examination, that she wants to live with the respondent. She also filed the affidavit of Ganesh Mishra. He is brother of the respondent. He deposed the same facts as deposed by the appellant. He specifically deposed that the appellant had beaten the respondent and the report at the Police Station was lodged. The respondent did not go to the house of the appellant inspite of efforts of family members of the appellant to take her back. 7. There is evidence of another witness, Shankardatt Tiwari, who deposed the same facts. 8. From the evidence of appellant himself, this fact has been proved that the appellant does not want to live with the respondent. 7. There is evidence of another witness, Shankardatt Tiwari, who deposed the same facts. 8. From the evidence of appellant himself, this fact has been proved that the appellant does not want to live with the respondent. Decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been passed against the appellant inspite of that the appellant did not take any step to keep the respondent with him. In his cross examination, he admitted the fact that he does not like the respondent. That is why, he does not want to keep the respondent with him. The witness of the appellant admitted fact that the appellant does not like the respondent and he is not willing to live with the respondent. Witness further admitted the fact that the respondent did not misbehave with her when she left the house of the appellant. From the evidence of appellant and his witnesses, in our opinion, the trial court has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for a decree of divorce. Trial court has considered the evidence on record in detail. Trial court recorded proper findings. There is no irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial court. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.