Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2725 (RAJ)

Laxmi Gehlot v. Badri Narayan Gehlot

2019-10-21

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant Laxmi Gehlot against the order of the learned Family Court, Ajmer passed on 14.12.2010 in Divorce Petition No. 82/2004 filed by Shri Badri Narayan (husband) u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") against Smt. Laxmi Gehlot (wife) whereby the learned Family Court annulled the marriage with effect from the date of the order i.e. 14.12.2010. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.6.1978 at Jodhpur according to the Hindu rites and customs. The spouses are blessed with two daughters, one of them died on 8.10.1985. The respondent husband was working in Kendriya Vidyalaya Jodhpur. When the respondent husband came his village at Dhrangdhra, the appellant wife would like to remain at her parents house and when the respondent husband came at Jodhpur, the appellant wife used to come her in-laws house. Thus the behavior of appellant wife became cruel towards respondent husband and his family members. The appellant wife did not take interest in the household work and used filthy language. On this account, the respondent husband and his family members felt insult before their relatives and neighbours. The appellant wife used to go her parental house at Jodhpur without any information. In the year 1979, when respondent husband decided to remain at his parental house at village Chokha, District Jodhpur but the appellant wife clearly refused to remain in village. Father of the appellant wife went to Jodhpur for pressurizing to live Ghar Janwai and this was impossible for respondent husband. On 10.6.1980, father of appellant wife went to respondent's house along with a team of punk of Nagauri Bera and threatened to respondent to remain at Jodhpur. Father of respondent expired on 24.7.1980. Appellant wife went to Jodhpur on 8.8.80 taking her all 'Stridhan'. The respondent husband complained to the relatives of appellant wife. The appellant wife deserted the respondent husband since 16.8.1980. 3. In reply, the appellant wife denied all the facts except marriage and two daughter. She stated that her second daughter expired due to his misbehave. She stated that she used to live at in-laws house at Jodhpur. She stated that she or her parents never told to remain him at Ghar Janwai. So, the petition be dismissed. 4. 3. In reply, the appellant wife denied all the facts except marriage and two daughter. She stated that her second daughter expired due to his misbehave. She stated that she used to live at in-laws house at Jodhpur. She stated that she or her parents never told to remain him at Ghar Janwai. So, the petition be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings and arguments advanced by both the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Family Court:- "1. Whether the respondent wife treated petitioner husband with cruelty as mentioned in the in the petition? 2. Whether the non-applicant wife has without any reasonable cause deserted the applicant husband continuously more than two years? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to get decree of divorce against the non-applicant? 4. Relief." 5. The respondent husband examined himself as AW-1 and one witness - Moti Lal AW-2. 6. The appellant wife examined herself as NAW 1 and one witness - Neelam Kachhawa NAW-2. 7. Learned Family Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides, all the issues were decided in favour of the respondent husband and against the appellant wife and annulled the marriage solemnized between them with effect from the order i.e. 14.12.2010. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 14.12.2010 is illegal, arbitrary and against the material available on record. He submitted that the respondent husband filed petition u/s. 13 of the Act after a period of alleged desertion by wife of 28 years which itself belies the entire fabricated tale of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent did not made any effort to restore the troubled matrimonial ties viz. he did not file any application u/s. 9 for restitution of conjugal rights which makes crystal clear that the respondent never fulfilled his duty of a good husband. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent husband had not fulfilled the matrimonial obligations and he had not cared of his daughters and neglected them. He submitted that the respondent had not made any effort to restore the relationship between them. He submitted that the appellant wanted to resume the ties conversely greeting cards etc. sent by her came back unserved. It shows that the respondent wanted to neglect her. He submitted that the respondent had not made any effort to restore the relationship between them. He submitted that the appellant wanted to resume the ties conversely greeting cards etc. sent by her came back unserved. It shows that the respondent wanted to neglect her. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in Criminal Case No. 420/1988, the learned Family Court observed that the respondent had left the appellant. So, the learned Family Court wrongly decided the issue of desertion against the appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent misbehaved her and due to cruel behavior, she had lost her daughter Santosh. He submitted that the respondent had not cared the appellant wife and also at the time of their illness, he left them alone. He submitted that the respondent husband thrown out them on 16.8.1980. Thereafter, she had to reside with her parental house. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant wife wanted to live with him. So, the appeal be allowed. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order of the learned Family Court. He supports the order passed by the learned Family Court. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that behavior of the appellant was cruel and disrespectful towards respondent and his family members. She did not want to do household work. She used to filthy language to insult him and his family members. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant left the matrimonial home without taking permission and used to go her parents' house on trivial matters. In May, 1979 she got made golden rings without any permission of the respondent on the occasion of her brother's marriage. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that on several time, the appellant came with her family members to quarrel with respondent. He submitted that on 16.8.1980, the appellant left the house of the respondent without his permission and had not come to live with him till today. He submitted that the appellant had not informed about birth of daughter Santosh and also not informed of her death. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant deserted the respondent without any reasonable and bona fide cause. So, the appeal be dismissed. 13. He submitted that the appellant had not informed about birth of daughter Santosh and also not informed of her death. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant deserted the respondent without any reasonable and bona fide cause. So, the appeal be dismissed. 13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties, perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi, reported in AIR 1988 SC 121 , observed as under: "Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words "treated the petitioner with cruelty". The word "cruelty" has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been denied. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical the Court will have no problem to determine it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulty. First the inquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment. Second, the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. There may, however, be cases whether the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or the injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted." 15. The Supreme Court in the case of V. Bhagat vs. Mrs. D. Bhagat, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 337 , has defined mental cruelty in the following manner: "Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. D. Bhagat, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 337 , has defined mental cruelty in the following manner: "Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be, had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever riving together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made." 16. It is evident from the record that behavior of the appellant towards respondent and his family members was cruel and disrespectful. The appellant wife used to threat them. Appellant's father also threatened to the respondent without any reasonable cause. The appellant wife had not informed about birth of daughter Santosh to the respondent husband and even of her death. Even after information, the appellant had not come to her matrimonial home at the time of death of her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. The appellant wife had deserted the respondent husband for last 28 years without any reasonable cause. She had not made any effort to restore the matrimonial relationships. The conduct and behavior of the appellant wife comes in the category of cruelty. The learned Family Court had not committed any error to decide the issue of cruelty and desertion against the appellant. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the appeal along with stay application is dismissed.