Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 345 (RAJ)

Yuvraj Mehara v. Usha Mehara

2021-02-11

MANOJ KUMAR VYAS, SABINA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant has filed the appeal challenging judgment and decree dated 21.02.2018 passed by the Family Court No. 2, Kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the Family Court'), whereby, divorce petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had been successful in establishing that he had been treated with cruelty by the respondent. Respondent despite information had failed to come to the matrimonial home at the time of death of her mother-in-law. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in-fact, the respondent had been thrown out of the matrimonial home by the appellant. Respondent had filed a case under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 4. Case of the appellant, in brief, was that he got married to the respondent on 22.11.2008. Respondent, after marriage, alleged that she was a daughter of an officer and would not do any household work. Respondent would not allow the appellant to develop physical relations with her and would go to her paternal house without informing the appellant. As and when the respondent got pregnant, she used to abort the child and when the appellant used to object to this, she used to threaten to commit suicide. Parties were residing separately for more than one year prior to the filing of the divorce petition. 5. The respondent in her reply admitted the factum of marriage with the appellant, but denied other allegations levelled in the petition. 6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Family Trial Court. 7. Both the parties led their evidence before the Family Court to prove their case. 8. Learned Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.02.2018 dismissed the divorce petition filed by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. 9. Admittedly, parties got married on 22.11.2008. No child was born to the parties out of their wedlock. Although, it is the plea of the appellant that respondent did not develop physical relations with him, but he has also stated in the divorce petition that the respondent had got pregnant and had aborted the child. It has been alleged by the appellant that the respondent had not come to the matrimonial home at the time of death of his mother. It has been alleged by the appellant that the respondent had not come to the matrimonial home at the time of death of his mother. Appellant, in his cross-examination, has stated that his sister had informed the respondent with regard to the death of his mother. 10. The respondent, on the other hand, has stated that sister of the appellant had informed her about the death of her mother-in-law, but had threatened her that she was not required to come for the ceremonies. 11. The appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not informed the respondent regarding illness or death of his mother. He also admitted that there were physical relations between the parties and respondent had become pregnant. He also admitted that he had given reply to the notice served on him by the respondent, wherein, she had asked him to take her to the matrimonial home, but he had not brought the respondent to the matrimonial home, as she had not come to attend the last rites of his mother. He also admitted that the respondent used to prepare meals for him, but did not serve the same to his parents. He also admitted that in case, the respondent did not want to have a child, then, she could have avoided pregnancy. He also admitted that when his aunts had come to visit him and the respondent had touched their feet. 12. Thus, from the cross-examination of the appellant, it is evident that he has himself demolished his case. Appellant has alleged that the respondent had aborted the child, but the said fact is not established on record. The diagnostic center's reports (Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 10) also fail to advance the case of the appellant, as it is the case of the appellant himself that the respondent had got pregnant. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondent was unable to bear a child. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the respondent had filed a case against the appellant under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Family Court rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove his case and had rightly decided the issues framed by it against the appellant. 14. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Family Court rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove his case and had rightly decided the issues framed by it against the appellant. 14. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. 15. Dismissed.