Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1812 (RAJ)

Narayan v. Saraswati

2018-08-30

DINESH MEHTA, PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Without pleading whether decree of divorce was being sought on ground of cruelty and/or desertion, the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pleading that marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu custom on 6.4.2006. That two sisters of the appellant were already married. Appellant's father had retired from service. Appellant's mother was suffering from various ailments. That from the very first night of the marriage the respondent did not accord status of a husband to the appellant and refused to have physical relationship with him. That the house of the maternal grandparents of the respondent was adjoining the house of the appellant and this was the reason why the appellant and the respondent came to know each other. The appellant fell in love with the respondent. Matrimonial relationship was the end result. That the appellant did not desire any dowry and did not take any dowry. Next day when he went to the house of his in-laws to seek their blessings his in-laws said that they would bless him only after he takes the dowry articles. Therefore he took the dowry articles. Same night there was a religious function in his house. To insult him the respondent threatened to live with her father and go to the parental house. He begged of them to stay back. But next day morning respondent left with her brother to parental house. Before she left he begged off her not to go. She abused him and gave him a slap and left with her brother. That after taking an examination the appellant went to the house of his in-laws. His father-in-law scolded him and respondent's brother said that he would not send his sister with him. That after the respondent returned to her matrimonial house she started troubling his parents and was disrespectful towards them. On the seventh day of the marriage when the appellant asked the respondent for the key of the almirah so that he could take out his clothes from the almirah the respondent threw the key at his face. That whenever respondent used to come to her matrimonial house she used to fight and foul the atmosphere in the house. On 8.9.2006 she accused him of being impotent and left the matrimonial house. That whenever respondent used to come to her matrimonial house she used to fight and foul the atmosphere in the house. On 8.9.2006 she accused him of being impotent and left the matrimonial house. On 20.1.2007 and 3.11.2007 he sent registered notices to the respondent requesting her to take back dowry articles. 2. To a reader of the petition, at first blush it strikes that the pleadings are diffused and inchoate. In paragraph 4 it is pleaded that the appellant and the respondent had met each other because respondent's maternal grand-parents house was adjoining the house of the appellant and they fell in love with each other. But in the preceding paragraph 3 it is stated that on the first night of the wedding respondent refused to have physical relationship with the appellant. In paragraph 6 it is pleaded that the next day of the marriage when the appellant and the respondent went to respondent's house to seek blessings, his in-laws said that they would bless him only after he accepts the dowry articles and thus he was compelled to receive the same. Meaning thereby, so much concerned were the parents of the respondent that not taking dowry by the appellant had hurt them and lest they be hurt the appellant took the dowry articles. But in the next paragraph i.e. paragraph 7 it stated that at the religious function in the appellant's house at night the respondent and her father created a scene. In paragraph 8, as noted above, general averments without particulars have been made to the effect that after taking the examination when appellant returned to his house and went to the house of his in-laws, his father-in-law scolded him. When did the appellant leave his house to take some examination? None has been stated. When he returned? None has been stated. 3. In our opinion so general and vague are the pleadings in the petition that no trial ought to have been conducted. The petition should have been thrown out as not disclosing any cause of action. 4. Be that as it may, while appearing as his witness the appellant verbatim copied his pleadings in his affidavit by way of evidence. In cross-examination he denied the suggestions made that the allegations which he made were false. The petition should have been thrown out as not disclosing any cause of action. 4. Be that as it may, while appearing as his witness the appellant verbatim copied his pleadings in his affidavit by way of evidence. In cross-examination he denied the suggestions made that the allegations which he made were false. But relevant would it be to note that he admitted the documents Ex.A/1, being a letter sent by him to the respondent. The letter bears date 9.9.2009. The relevance of the date is that as per the appellant the respondent left the matrimonial house on 8.9.2006. In the letter the appellant commences by praying for the well being of the respondent. That it has been eight months since the respondent left the matrimonial house. That presumably the respondent suffered pain as the appellant did during this period of separation. That if the respondent was happy to break the marriage, the appellant would abide by her wishes. The appellant can never imagine that this would be their fate in life. That all mobile numbers of respondent had changed and thus he could not contact her. The appellant admitted Ex.A/2 as his writing dated 28.2.2008 in which it is written that in the evening after school he would meet respondent in her parental house. He admitted Ex.A/3 in which he wrote: 'All life in matrimonial house or all life in the in-laws' house'. He admitted that the envelope Ex.A/4 had the address of the addressee scribed in his hand. He admitted that the postal envelope Ex.A/5 was scribed in his hand. 5. We have noted the five exhibited documents and in respect of A/4 and A/5 the relevance would it be to note that on 20.1.2007 the appellant sent to the respondent through registered post an envelope and in the envelope we find a proforma to be filled up with the employment exchange. The envelope Ex.A/5 contains a card of New Year greetings. 6. As noted above the appellant pleaded that on 20.1.2007 and 3.11.2007 he sent registered notices to the respondent asking her to take back the dowry articles. The two registered envelopes belies the version of the appellant. 7. We need not waste our time on discussing any further evidence. The reason is that the pleadings of the appellants are inchoate and diffused. They are contradictory. On the face of it a fanciful version has been pleaded. The two registered envelopes belies the version of the appellant. 7. We need not waste our time on discussing any further evidence. The reason is that the pleadings of the appellants are inchoate and diffused. They are contradictory. On the face of it a fanciful version has been pleaded. The appellant's assertion that on 20.1.2007 and 3.11.2007 he sent notices to his wife has been disproved through Ex.A/4 and Ex.A/5. 8. As regards the respondent, her version in the reply was that adequate dowry by her parents was given. She had physical relationship with the appellant and was never disrespectful towards her in-laws. On 1.2.2009 she was thrown out from the matrimonial house in the clothes she was wearing. Her dowry articles were retained. 9. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment with respect to the pleadings of the appellant. 10. The only contention argued today by counsel for the appellant is that a false case was registered by the respondent against the appellant for offences under Section 498A/406 IPC in which the appellant has been acquitted. But counsel admitted that appeal against said decision is pending in the Court of Sessions. 11. On this aspect of the matter we only need to note that in the petition seeking divorce it is not the case of the appellant that mental cruelty was inflicted upon him when the respondent filed a false case of dowry harassment against him. 12. The appeal is dismissed.