Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramgopal Modi vs Parvati Devi on 5 October, 2010
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Ram Gopal Modi Vs. Smt. Parvati Devi DB CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.5234/2008. Under Section 19 of the Family Court Act (Amended), 1991. DATE OF ORDER: 5th October, 2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK Mr. D.K. Dixit for the appellant. None for the respondent.
AS PER HON'BLE S.P. PATHAK, J.:
This misc. appeal under section 19 of the Family Court Act (Amended), 1991 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2008 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Jaipur whereby the petition filed by the appellant under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.
Briefly stated, the facts for the disposal of the present appeal, are that the appellant (husband) filed a petition in the year 2002 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (here-in-after to be referred in short as, 'the Act') before the learned Judge, Family Court against the respondent Smt. Parvati Devi (wife) with the averments that their marriage was solemnized in the year 1983 under the Hindu rites and rituals. For some time the relations between the husband and wife remained cordial but after lapse of some time as the husband was deaf and dumb, the respondent-wife started treating the husband roughly and her conduct towards husband was cruel and she at times also used to beat him. It is also alleged that the husband was class IV employee and a government quarter at Jaipur was allotted to him. Ashok, Rajendra Kumar and Satya Narain, the brothers of wife started regularly visiting in the government quarter and used to take liquor there. It was also alleged that frivolous and false complaints were made by the wife against the husband in the police station. The husband was also deprived of conjugal rights. A prayer was made for dissolution of marriage.
A reply to the petition was filed by the wife wherein she denied the allegations levelled by the husband. It was also averred in the reply that her behaviour was always very submissive towards her husband and her brothers were not visiting the quarter of the husband regularly and also that they never used to take liquor as alleged by the husband.
The learned Judge, Family Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed three issues including relief. Issue no.1 was in relation to mental and physical cruelty attributed to the wife by the husband. Issue no.2 was in relation to dessertion without any reason by the wife.
The husband examined himself as PW-1 and his brother Murari Lal as PW-2. The respondent wife examined herself as DW-1 and her daughter Pooja as DW-2.
The learned Judge, Family Court on the basis of evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the husband by oral as well as by documentary evidence was not able to prove issue no.1, therefore, issue no.1 was decided against the husband. Issue no.2 was also decided against him. After hearing both sides, the learned Judge, Family Court rejected the petition moved for dissolution of marriage vide its judgment and decree dated 19.06.2008. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned order and the material available on record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel that the appellant-husband is deaf and dumb, therefore, it is not correct to say that he made any statement before the learned Judge, Family Court. It is also contended that without any rhyme or reason, the wife had left the house of the husband. It is also contended that on several occasions, he was given severe beating and it is not possible for the husband to live with her, therefore, in the above circumstances, the learned family court was not justified in rejecting the application moved by the applicant for dissolution of marriage.
We have considered the above submissions.
In the present matter, the point which requires consideration is as to whether the learned Judge, Family Court has committed any illegality in rejecting the application moved by the husband for dissolution of marriage.
It is to be seen that before the learned Judge, Family Court, application was moved under section 13 of the Act making several allegations against the wife but none of them could be proved and in the statement the husband has stated that his marriage took place in the year 1983 and out of wedlock four children born. He has also stated that the wife and children used to beat him regularly. In the cross-examination he has stated that he wants to keep the wife with him and he does not want dissolution of the marriage. His brother Murari Lal PW-2 stated that his younger brother, the husband-applicant, stammers. He cannot speak clearly. He has confirmed the fact that four children were born out of the wedlock of applicant-husband and the respondent-wife. They have three daughters and one son. The daughters have attained the age of marriage and the son is 10 years old. He has also stated that his brother does not want to obtain decree of divorce and is ready and willing to live with his wife. The wife has also stated that she is about 47 years of age and have four children and she wants to live with her husband.
Thus, the evidence available on record clealy indicates that the parties were not keen to seek divorce, therefore, the learned Judge, Family Court correctly on the basis of evidence adduced decided issue no.1 in favour of the husband. From the evidence, it could not be established that the behaviour of the wife towards her husband was cruel or she used to maltreat her husband. The learned Judge, Family Court has correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record and has rightly declined to grant decree of divorce as sought in the application by the husband as apparently from his statement it appears that he himself was not willing to divorce his wife.
The argument raised by the learned counsel that the husband was deaf and dumb and was not in a position to give statement, therefore, the statement which has been recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court deserves no consideration, is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the learned Judge, Family Court while recording statement of the appellant has put a note to the effect that since the appellant was not clearly speaking, therefore, his statement was recorded with the assistance of his brother Murari Lal. The statement of the husband and his brother Murari Lal are available on file.
In view of two statements recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court, it cannot be said that the family court never recorded the statement or has committed illegality in appreciating the evidence. There does not appear any merit in the present appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this misc. appeal stands dismissed.
(SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK),J (ARUN MISHRA),J. BBLM