Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 598 (RAJ)

Nageshwar Puri v. Prem Lata

2020-08-13

CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA, SABINA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby, divorce petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Case of the appellant as per the divorce petition, in brief, was that he had performed marriage with the respondent on 19.4.1969. It was the case of the appellant that the parties were residing separately for the last 40/45 years. Divorce petition was filed in the year 2015. It is further case of the appellant that the respondent had lodged criminal cases against him. Parties had amicably settled their dispute on 26.5.2011 and respondent had received Rs.50,000/- from the appellant by way of two cheques. Respondent had deserted the appellant. 3. In reply to the petition, respondent had admitted the factum of marriage between the parties and submitted that she had performed marriage with the appellant on 19.4.1970. She had lived with the appellant till January, 2011. It was further averred that the appellant had been giving maintenance to her and her children. She further stated that she had lodged complaint against the appellant under Sections 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the said proceedings, a compromise was effected between the parties as appellant had prayed that he would lose his government job and had agreed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent and to give her a house measuring 11 x 35 square feet. However, respondent did not receive the amount vis-a-vis cheques issued by the appellant in her favour. Thereafter, criminal proceedings under Section 498-A and 406 of IPC were lodged against the appellant. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the necessary issues. 5. Appellant appeared in the witness box as AW-1 in support of his case and respondent appeared in the witness box as NAW-1 in support of her case. 6. Appellant stated that he had performed marriage with the respondent and they lived together as husband and wife for 10 years. Out of their wedlock one son and one daughter were born. Behaviour of the respondent towards his parents was not good. Respondent had filed 10/11 cases against him. 6. Appellant stated that he had performed marriage with the respondent and they lived together as husband and wife for 10 years. Out of their wedlock one son and one daughter were born. Behaviour of the respondent towards his parents was not good. Respondent had filed 10/11 cases against him. She had also lodged case against him under Section 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Protection of Women From Domestic violence Act, 2005 and under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and had also filed a case for stoppage of his pension. His parents had performed his Nata marriage. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had performed second marriage without obtaining divorce from his first wife. He admitted the pendency of cheque bouncing case against him. He admitted that a compromise was effected that he would give a house to the respondent. 7. Respondent while appearing in the witness box deposed that she had performed marriage with the appellant. Appellant had performed second marriage without obtaining divorce from her. She had arrived at a compromise in proceedings under Section 498-A IPC, but, the cheques had bounced and case was pending in this regard. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 9. In the present case, admittedly, parties had got married and out of their wedlock one son and one daughter were born. 10. Parties lived together for about 10/11 years. Thereafter, appellant had performed a second marriage without getting decree of divorce from his first wife (respondent). Criminal cases are pending against the appellant. It is also evident that cheques issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent in terms of the compromise had bounced and proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are pending against him. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned trial court rightly held that the ground taken by the appellant that the respondent had deserted him was not established. Rather, it is evident that the appellant has performed a second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage. Hence, the learned trial court rightly dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant.