Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mukesh Kumar vs Smt Rani Kumari on 16 August, 2018
Bench: Chief Justice, G R Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6436/2017
Mukesh Kumar S/o Bhenru Lal, R/o Nearby Rajnagar Fist Nala,
Aksha Kirana Store, Kota Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rani Kumari W/o Mukesh Kumar D/o Shri Looma Ram, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Shyam Nagar, Rawatbhata Road, Gali No-4 Kota
Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kaleem Ahmed Khan HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Order 16/08/2018 D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2877/2017
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, 25 days delay in preferring the appeal is condoned.
2. The application is allowed.
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6436/2017
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Trial court record has been perused. Respondent's petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce on ground of cruelty and desertion for two years preceding the date when the petition was filed, has been decided vide impugned order dated 27.09.2017. Divorce has been granted on ground of cruelty. Date of desertion not been established, petition has been dismissed as regards desertion.
(2 of 4) [CMA-6436/2017]
3. Case of the respondent was that marriage between the parties was solemnised as per Hindu customs on 13.05.2011. Commensurate with the means of her family, dowry was given but after the marriage the appellant and his family members started demanding ₹ 50,000/- to purchase a motorcycle and on account of non fulfillment of the demand she was in trouble. She pleaded that the appellant was alocohlic and uses to demand money from her. He would not make arrangement for food in the house. When she was in the family way the appellant did not care for her and she was forced under threat of physical assault to perform household duties. She was thrown out of the house on account of not fulfilling the demand of ₹ 50,000/- and for which she had lodged a FIR for the offences under Section 498-A/406 IPC.
4. Relevant would it be to highlight that in her petition the respondent did not plead that the appellant made false allegations against her of having illicit relationship with one Bhanwar Jat.
5. In the reply filed by the appellant he denied the allegations made against him and pleaded that for reasons unknown after sometime of the marriage the wife left him and went to her parental house.
6. Relevant would it be to highlight that in the reply filed the appellant did not allege that the resopndent used to make allegations against him of maintaining relationship with a lady named Lalita. He did not plead that his wife was maintaining illicit relationship with one Bhanwar Jat.
7. Surprisingly, while deposing as her witness the respondent i.e. the wife apart from stating facts in support of the (3 of 4) [CMA-6436/2017] pleading introduced the story that her husband was having an affair with one Lalita.
8. Appearing as his witness, the appellant denied having troubled his wife or having made any dowry demand but surprisingly introduced the story that his wife was having illicit relationship with one Bhanwar Lal. Surprisingly, appellant examined Bhanwar Lal as NAW-2, who denied any relationship with the respondent. He denied being on contact through his mobile phone number with the mobile phone number of the respondent. He deposed that the appellant used to take his phone and send messages through the same.
9. In view of this summary and cryptic evidence, the learned Judge has taken the view that the version of the wife appears to be plausible i.e. of being troubled on account of dowry.
10. So scanty is the pleadings and the evidence of the parties that it would be difficult to find fault with the impugned judgment for the reason it is a case of word of mouth against a word of mouth but what needs to be emphasized is that without there being any pleading by either party, while deposing in court, the appellant introduced the version of his wife having illicit relationship with Bhanwar Jat who was examined as a witness by the appellant who denied that he was having any relationship with appellant's wife and stated that appellant used to take his mobile phone to send messages. Even the respondent introduced a version of the appellant having an affair with a girl named Lalita. She could not prove that allegation.
11. From the aforesaid it is apparent that both parties are indulging in mutual recrimination amounting to cruelty against each (4 of 4) [CMA-6436/2017] other and, therefore, on said ground alone the impugned judgment needs to be upheld.
10. Ordered accordingly.
11. The appeal is dismissed.
(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ db/ashu/12 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)