Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Santosh Devi vs Prem Chand Saini on 12 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: AIR2007RAJ121, RLW2008(1)RAJ357
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur along with application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act of the husband Prem Chand Saini against wife Smt. Santosh Devi vide judgment and decree dated 11.06.2002.
2. According to the application the parties got married as per Hindu Rites on 11-4-92 at Mansinghpura, Tonk Road, Jaipur and out of the said wedlock in June, 1995 a male child was born. According to the applicant-husband after about six months of living together, the respondent-wife started pressurising him to live separately from his parents who were not keeping well and used to go to her parents house even without informing him and her behaviour towards the applicant-husband and his parents was cruel and she indulged in several fights with him and his parents and on 25-2-95 she left the matrimonial home and never returned thereafter. Thus on account of cruelty and desertion, the divorce petition was filed on 12-7-97 which was decreed by impugned judgment on 11-6-2002.
3. Being aggrieved by the said decree for divorce, the appellant-wife has preferred this appeal in this Court and cross objections have been filed by the respondent-husband against grant of permanent alimony in favour of wife @ Rs. 800/- per month and for the minor child @ Rs. 400/- per month.
4. We have heard learned Counsel on both the sides and have perused the record.
5. The learned Family Court framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the respondent-wile is guilty of cruel behaviour with the applicant-husband after her marriage?
(2) Whether the respondent-wife has deserted the applicant-husband for more than two years before the date of filing of the divorce petition without any valid reason and has not performed matrimonial obligations?
6. In support of the petition, the applicant-husband examined before the Family Court himself as PW-1, PW-2 Lalchand, PW-3 Phooli Devi and PW-4 Pooran. As against this, the defendant-wife was examined as DW-1, Rama Devi, the mother of the respondent-wife as DW-2, Sitaram DW-3, Lalchand DW-4 and Ramji Lal Soni as DW-5.
7. PW-1 the applicant-husband deposed before the learned Family Court that the defendant-wife lived with him in their matrimonial home in a normal manner only for a period of six months and thereafter she started pressurising the applicant-husband to live separately and she did not want to live with his parents as the father of the applicant-husband was not keeping well. She refused to live with his parents and frequently indulged in abusive behaviour with them. She levelled false allegations against all of them for demand of dowry etc. and as a matter of fact for a criminal case filed against the husband and his parents under Section 498-A of Cr.P.C. the husband had to remain in custody for about one week. The applicant-husband stated further that ultimately the father of the husband died on 28-9-97 and even after birth of the child when the applicant-husband wanted to bring her back to their home, she refused to come and his in-laws indulged in abusive behaviour with them. He also stated that the respondent-wife used to fight with him also and on one occasion she pulled his hair.
8. As against this, the defendant-wife denied these allegations and deposed before the Court that she never insisted upon the applicant-husband to live separately and on the contrary her in-laws insisted for dowry upon her and despite birth of the male child, she was not taken to her matrimonial home and because of the dowry demand she did not go to her matrimonial home after February, 1995. The other witnesses appearing on both the sides have more or less supported the version given by the husband and the wife.
9. Having perused the evidence and the statements on record and in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in the appeal filed by the respondent-wife and the applicant-husband has succeeded improving the case of cruelty and desertion against the respondent-wife. Undue insistence on the husband to live separately from the old aged parents, particularly when one of the parents is ill and countering the filing of divorce petition by a case under Section 498-A of Cr.P.C, during which the applicant-husband had to remain in custody and then leaving the matrimonial home ever since February, 1995. These facts which have been proved by the various witnesses before the Court are sufficient indication, in the opinion of this Court, of acts of cruelty by wife towards the husband. Leaving matrimonial home without informing the parents and the applicant-husband and not coming to matrimonial home ever since February, 1995 shows that the respondent-wife was not at all interested in living with the applicant-husband as wife and had deserted the husband, therefore, the learned Family Court has rightly granted the decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
10. In view of this, we uphold the decree of divorce granted in favour of the applicant-husband and dismiss the appeal of the wife. At the same time, the cross objections filed by the husband against the award of alimony of Rs. 800/- per month in favour of the wife and Rs. 400/- per month in favour of the minor child are also found to be devoid of any merit and accordingly the cross objections are also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.