Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Priyanka Pateriya (Rawat) vs Shri Sandeep Rawat on 21 June, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 21st OF JUNE, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 945 of 2022
Between:-
SMT.PRIYANKA PATERIYA (RAWAT) W/O
SANDEEP RAWAT , AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE MALPURA,
DIST.CHHATARPUR AT PRESENT BEHIND
HIGHER SECONDRY SCHOOL NO.1 ADARSH
NAGAR CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI M.K.MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SHRI SANDEEP RAWAT S/O VIPIN BIHARI
RAWAT OCCUPATION: BANK CLERK
PATHAPUR ROAD NEAR RAM JANKI TEMPLE,
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY NONE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the wife of the respondent.The respondent has filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court Chhattarpur seeking divorce from the petitioner on the ground of insanity and cruelty. In the petition the respondent has made allegations that the petitioner is Signature Not Verified SAN mentally insane and that she was undergoing treatment from before.
Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKIAn IA was filed before the learned Trial Court which was decided Date: 2022.06.22 18:09:37 IST 2 by the Trial Court on 1.10.2021, by which the petitioner denied before the Trial Court that she is insane but is stated to have volunteered for a medical check up to ascertain whether she is mentally insane. The learned Trial Court by the said order disposed of IN No.2 by asking the respondent herein to bear the expenses of the petitioner and have her examined before the Medical Board at his own expense. Thereafter as the said order was not complied with, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Trial Court that despite its order dated 1.10.2021 directing the respondent to get the psychiatric evaluation of the petitioner from the Medical Board upon his own expenses, the respondent has not complied with the said order. She further stated before the learned Trial Court on 4.12.2021 that the petitioner is willing to get her psychiatric evaluation done at her own expenses and demanded the presence of the respondent before the Medical Board. The respondent informed the Court that he is no longer interested in getting the psychiatric evaluation of the petitioner and that as he has levelled the allegation of insanity it is up to him to establish the said charge through other evidence that may be available to him. On the said ground, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for getting her psychiatric evaluation holding that it is for the respondent to prove the charge as he has levelled it against the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified SANThis Court does not find any error in dismissal of the said Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI Date: 2022.06.22 18:09:37 IST 3 application by the learned Trial Court as it is trite law that he who asserts must establish. In this case it is the respondent who levelled the allegation of insanity against the petitioner and therefore it is for him to establish the said charge by whatever evidence that he may draw in that regard. However, if the omissions on the part of the respondent would draw any adverse inference against him is a matter to be decided by the learned Trial Court during the course of the case.
The second part of the order dated 1.2.2021 which has been challenged by the petitioner herein is that as per IN No.5, the respondent had made an allegation of assault by the petitioner and that he had even been treated by the hospital and had filed certain documents pertaining to the treatment undergone by him at the District Hospital at Chhattarpur. The petitioner on her own account under the Right to Information Act moved an application seeking details of the MLC registers of 23.9.2017, 29.11.2017, 4.1.2018, 12.1.2018 and 2.5.2018, which were given to her. It is the case of the petitioner that as per those documents the respondent was never treated on any of those dates at the said hospital for any injuries suffered by him and, therefore, the documents pertaining to the same are fabricated. On 7.1.2022 her application for calling for the said record from the hospital was decided. The Court had earlier called for a report from Signature Not Verified SAN the hospital with regard to the documents pertaining to the treatment of Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI the respondent at the said hospital. The hospital replied that there exists Date: 2022.06.22 18:09:37 IST 4 no documentation pertaining to any treatment given to the respondent at the said the hospital on any of those dates.
Under the circumstances, the said application moved by the petitioner was also dismissed. The said order also cannot be faulted. If one looks at the documents given to the petitioner on the aforementioned date by the District Hospital at Chhattarpur, a copy of which is at page 23, it only gives photo copies of the MLC registers of the dates aforementioned. It does not state as to who are the persons were injured and were treated by way of the said MLCs.
Under the circumstances, if the petitioner is aggrieved that false and fabricated documents have been filed before the Trial Court in the course of the proceedings then she has the liberty of pursuing such remedies which may be available to her under the law. However, the said impugned order cannot be faulted.
With the above the petition is dismissed.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE ss Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI Date: 2022.06.22 18:09:37 IST