JEEVANBALA Vs. RAJKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed, Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), against the judgment and decree dated 25. 6. 1992 delivered by Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Mandsaur in Hindu Marriage Case No. 6/1984, whereby granted a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent/husband.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that admittedly the marriage between the parties took place as per Hindu rites and customs on 14. 5. 1981 at Thandla, District Jhabua. The appellant/wife was resident of Jhabua and the respondent/husband was resident of Mandsaur. After the marriage in the year 1981, on 16. 1. 1984 the respondent/husband filed a petition Under Section 13 of the Act alleging therein that after the marriage they both lived together; marriage was consummated by the respondent/husband and the appellant/wife was residing with the respondent/husband at Mandsaur. It was further alleged that on 15. 8. 1981 on the Rakhi festival the appellant/wife went to her father's house and while going, she took all ornaments with her. The description of the ornaments has been mentioned in para No. 4 of the petition. It was stated that when she went on Rakhi festival her intention was not to come back. It was further stated that thereafter she came back to her husband's house at Mandsaur but she did not bring her ornaments and valuable clothes. Those valuable ornaments and clothes were kept at Jhabua. When the reason was asked, she gave some lame excuses and she wrote a letter to her mother for sending back her ornaments. Thereafter on 21. 11. 1981 she again went to her father's house with the intention that she will live for few days and come back with ornaments and clothes but thereafter she did not come back. Sujanmal, father of the respondent/husband along with his friend Premchand went to take her back but she refused to come back to husband's house and the mother of the appellant/wife also refused and from 21. 11. 1981 till the filing of the petition on 16. 1. 1984, she was residing at Jhabua and thus it was stated that she has deserted the husband. On 303. 1982 the husband served a legal notice but even after service of notice she did not come back and sent a wrong reply of the said notice and, therefore, on the ground of desertion respondent/husband sought a decree for divorce. During the pendency of the petition, on 20. 9. 1989 the respondent/husband added one more ground in the divorce petition that on 15. 8. 1981 when appellant had gone to her father's house, she was not pregnant and when she came back before 15 days of 22. 11. 1981 there was no cohabitation between them. In the meantime the respondent/husband had also not gone to Jhabua nor met the appellant and nor cohabited and thus for 280 days there was no cohabitation between them and thus the child delivered by wife is not out of the wedlock of the husband. It was further stated that she had deserted the respondent because she was living in adultery and she was having some extra marital relation with some other person and the child born was not from him, therefore, also sought a decree for divorce on this ground.

(3.) IN the written statement all these allegations were denied by the appellant/ wife. It was stated that after the marriage, the husband and his family members were demanding dowry and were pressurising for giving more money and at the time of Rakhi festival they demanded one scooter or Rs. 15,000. 00 cash. It was further stated that due to the poor condition of the parents of the appellant/wife they could not arrange either a scooter or Rs. 15,000. 00. After Rakhi festival when she came back, she became pregnant and this fact was known to the respondent and thereafter they started beating the appellant/wife and on 21. 11. 1981 the husband himself came to Jhabua and left her with her parents where she delivered a child on 6. 6. 1982. It was denied that there was no cohabitation between them from Rakhi festival to 21. 11. 1981 or 15 days earlier of 21. 11. 1981. On 21. 11. 1981 she was pregnant and she was carrying three months pregnancy but the husband and his parents were always demanding money and they themselves left her at her parents house. It was stated in the written/statement that she had brought only part of the ornaments and the remaining ornaments were with the father of the husband. It was also denied that she had kept all the valuable ornaments and clothes at Jhabua. It was further stated that when she came back after Rakhi festival, she brought back all the ornaments and they were checked by them. In the written statement she has also denied additional allegation made by amendment dated 20. 9. 1989 that there was no cohabitation between them after Rakhi festival or she was having illicit relation with some other person. On Rakhi festival when appellant /wife came to Jhabua, the respondent/husband had also came with her. Thereafter they went to Thandala and again came to Jhabua. They both cohabited at Jhabua and thereafter at Mandsaur. The appellant/wife had started vomiting and other problems of post-pregnancy from third month. Therefore, it was the respondent/husband who himself brought her to Jhabua and left her at mother's house. The son born out of the wedlock and the cohabitation with the respondent/ husband. The allegations that she is living in adultery or was having illicit relation with some other person were vehemently denied. She wrote several letters to the respondent but thereafter he did not turn up either to meet the son or to take her back. It was further stated in the written statement that she was always prepared to live with the respondent/husband and still she is willing to live with the respondent/husband.