Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Murti Kanwar vs Jaipal Singh on 7 May, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, Vinit Kumar Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1408 / 2017
Smt. Murti Kanwar W/o Shri Jaipal Singh D/o Ratan Singh, Aged
About 32 Years, By Caste Rajput, Resident of Pali, Tehsil & District
Mahenragarh (Haryana) At Present Residing At Village Sirsala,
Tehsil and District Churu.
----Appellant
Versus
Jaipal Singh S/o Sadul Singh, Resident of Village Sirsala, Tehsil
and District Churu.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nitin Trivedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur with
Mr. Manoj Pareek
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment 07/05/2018
1. Since with consent of parties we are remanding the matter to the learned Judge, Family Court after setting aside impugned order, we give the reasons there-of.
2. The husband filed a petition seeking divorce simply stating that he was seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The meaningful reading of the pleadings would show that the divorce was sought on three different grounds. The first was Section 13 (1)(ia) for cruelty. The second was desertion for a period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition i.e. Section 13(1)(ib).
(2 of 2) [CMA-1408/2017] The third was that the wife was suffering from a mental disorder i.e. Section 13(1)(iii). Unfortunately, the two issues settled were concerning cruelty and mental disorder. No issue of desertion was settled. As per the impugned judgment holding that the husband has neither proved cruelty nor mental disorder divorce has been granted on ground of desertion. There is no discussion of the evidence concerning desertion. That apart, even an issue was not settled. Thus, with the consent of parties impugned order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside. Petition filed by the respondent is restored for adjudication afresh with a direction that an issue concerning desertion would be settled and parties would be permitted to lead evidence on said issue and thereafter the issue would be decided afresh.
3. The appeal is disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Solanki Sunil/-
19