GEETA JHA Vs. PRANKRISHNA RAINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal filed under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made to a judgment and decree dated 21st July, 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Rewa in Suit No.112A/1998 by which marriage between the parties has been dissolved.

(2.) Plaintiff husband filed the suit in question on 26.10.1994 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of adultery and desertion. It was the case of the plaintiff that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 18th June, 1993 at 31/33 Police Line, Rewa in the house of one Shri Phalgo Prasad Pathak. Bidai took place on 19th June, 1993. When the parties went to stay in the house of respondent husband situated in PTS Chouraha, Rewa, it was said by the plaintiff that the marriage was solemnized on misrepresentation at the instance of Shri Phalgo Prasad Pathak and brother of the respondent wife and after the marriage, since 19.6.1993 the respondent wife refused to perform her marital responsibilities. Whenever she was asked to do certain thing, she would say that she would do as is told to her by Shri Phalgo Prasad Pathak. It was said that on 21.6.1993 the appellant wife went to her house and when the respondent husband went to bring her on 24.6.1993, she came with him but instead of going to the house of the husband, she took the husband to the house of Shri Phalgo Prasad Pathak and stayed there for the whole day and came back with her husband in the evening but repeatedly thereafter on every day till 28.6.1993 Shri Phalgo Prasad Pathak used to go to the house of the plaintiff and stay with his wife for the whole day. Thereafter from 1.7.1993 the appellant wife left the husband and it was said that she was living in adultery with Shri Phalgo Prasad Pathak. Based on the aforesaid allegations the petition for divorce was filed on 26.10.1994 i.e. after a period of 16 months of solemnizing of the marriage. On notice being issued the appellant wife appeared, denied the allegations leveled and said that she had left the house of the husband only because he was harassing her, demanding dowry and assaulting her . Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed five issues. Issue No.1 was as to whether the defendant wife after solemnizing the marriage is living in adultery with another person? Issue No. 2 was as to whether the plaintiff husband was ill treating the wife, committing mental and physical cruelty on her and harassing her. Issue No. 3 was as to what relief can be granted in the case. An additional issue, issue No. 4 was framed to the effect as to whether the act of the defendant wife amounts to mental cruelty against the husband. The issues have been answered and based on the evidence that came on record, the learned Court has found that the allegation of the defendant wife living in adultery is established. The allegation of the defendant wife with regard to harassment and assault by the husband is not been proved and finding the case of mental cruelty of the wife on the husband and the grounds of desertion at the time of passing of the decree on 21.7.1999 to have been established, the marriage is dissolved. Challenging the aforesaid, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Refuting the aforesaid, Shri M. L. Jaiswal, learned senior counsel argued that based on the overwhelming evidence that came on record a proper finding is recorded by the trial Court and as the finding is established from the statement of the seven prosecution witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff, no interference should be made in the matter. He therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 1974 JLJ 247 = 1974 MPLJ page 188 has recorded a finding that with regard to adultery no direct evidence can be obtained but after evaluating the circumstances in para 12 the finding recorded is that the allegation of the appellant staying with Shri Phalgo Prasad Pathak cannot be ruled out. Thereafter, the learned Court has found that ever since marriage, the parties were fighting with each other, cases and counter cases were filed by the parties and after the marriage was solemnized on 18.6.1993 within a period of less than six months cases are being filed and finally the suit for dissolution was filed on 26.10.1994 and the evidence does show that the wife is living separately since more than two years at the time when the suit was decided finally in the year 1999. Taking note of all these circumstances, it is held that the case of desertion by the wife is also made out. We have gone through the evidence of the parties available on record and we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court has read the evidence lead by the parties correctly and finding recorded by the trial Court is a proper conclusion which could be arrived at on analysis of the evidence and we see no reason to interfere into the matter as a reasonable finding is recorded by the Court below based on the evidence that came on record. It is a case where the parties are living separately since 1.7.1993 and therefore, now no case for interference with the decree for dissolution of marriage is made out. 6. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the matter, this appeal is dismissed. 7. Original record be sent back.