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 1]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Hari Prakash Sharma vs Smt Geeta Bai & Ors on 18 January, 2018

Bench: Chief Justice, G R Moolchandani

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
                      JAIPUR
         D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1343 / 2009
Hari Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Bajrang Lal, R/o near Rajendra Oil
Mills, Seeswali, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran (Raj.)
                                                      ----Appellant
                                Versus
Smt Geeta Bai W/o Hari Prakash Sharma, R/o C/o Shri Ramesh
Chand Sharma, Pipli Mohalla, Khan Gawdi, Civil Lines, Kota.
                                                   ----Respondent

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajit Maloo.

For Respondent(s) :

_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Judgment 18/01/2018 (1) After 28 years of a married life and blessed with four children disputes and differences arose between the appellant and the respondent. The respondent shifted to the house of her parents. The appellant seeks a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The testimony of the couple would obviously be tainted in their favour. What breaks the deadlock is the testimony of Lokesh the son of the parties who would be expected to be a neutral person. As per his testimony, the appellant did not care for the family and there was constant bickering between the couple. He also makes a reference to the father beating the mother. But we find that in her testimony the wife does not say that the appellant used to beat her.

(2 of 2) [CMA-1343/2009] (2) Be that as it may, the testimony of the son brings out that 28 years of married life took its tool on the couple. After the children had grown up they had nothing to do except to fight. (3) In view of the evidence which we have briefly noted hereinabove emanating from the mouth of the son we agree with the view taken by the learned Judge, Family Court that the wife had a reasonable cause to withdraw from the consortium and thus it is a case of constructive desertion.

(4)          The appeal is dismissed.




(G R MOOLCHANDANI)J.                        (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)C.J.

N.Gandhi/Ashwani/25