Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Pradeep Patodi vs Rupali Patodi on 15 February, 2018

Bench: Chief Justice, G R Moolchandani

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR
           D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2337/2017

Pradeep Patodi S/o Late Ramswaroop Patodi, By Caste Jain, R/o
Lalbihari Ji Ka Chowk, Chudi Bazaar Bundi Tehsil And District
Bundi Raj.
                                                      ----Appellant
                               Versus
Rupali Patodi W/o Pradeep Patodi D/o Late Dilip Sethi By Caste
Jain, R/o B-10, Himmat Vihar, Kesarichandra Choudhary Nagar,
Bhankrota Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                    ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Laddha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anant Priya Sain on behalf of Mr. Vijay Choudhary HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Judgment 15/02/2018

1. The appellant is not present in Court. Learned counsel states that whenever he rings the appellant the phone gets switched off.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The appellant sought restitution of conjugal rights. The petition has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 31.03.2017.

4. Admitting having left consortium and moving to her parents house the stand taken by the respondent was that the appellant used to harass her for dowry and for which she had lodged a complaint with the police pursuant whereto an FIR was (2 of 2) [CMA-2337/2017] registered. That the appellant was moving around with ladies and that is why he was troubling her.

5. At the trial the respondent proved photographs Exhibit 1 to 7 which show that the appellant is posing with lady in a manner suggestive of an intimate relationship. The name of the lady is Jyoti Meghwal.

6. The view taken by the learned Judge, Family Court that it is a case of constructive desertion is thus correct.

7. The appeal is dismissed.

(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ KKC/33