DEVKI @ ANITA Vs. RAMCHARAN @ CHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/wife has preferred this first appeal under Sec. 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 being aggrieved by impugned judgment and decree dtd. 4/10/2021 passed by First District Judge, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha (M.P.) in RCS HM No.1/2017, whereby respondent/husband's petition under Sec. 13(1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short HMA) for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty has been allowed and decree of divorce has been passed.

(2.) Admitted facts of the case are that marriage of appellant with respondent was solemnized on 18/5/2013 as per Hindu rites and rituals and they blessed with a child Ansh, who is now living with appellant. It is also admitted fact that appellant/wife has lodged a FIR at Police Station Nateran, District Vidisha on 15/11/2017 and on the basis of said FIR, offences under Ss. 498-A, 323, 34 of IPC and under Ss. 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been registered against the respondent/husband and his family members and a criminal case is pending against the respondent before the Court of JMFC, Ganjbasoda. Earlier the respondent has filed a petition under Sec. 9 of HMA against the appellant, which has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

(3.) Brief facts of the case of the respondent/husband before the Trial Court are that after marriage the appellant/wife was continuously pressurizing him for shifting to some big city and used to close the doors and threatened that she will commit suicide and also threatened him that she will falsely implicate his entire family in a dowry case. Appellant/wife also left the matrimonial house voluntarily on 17/9/2014 with the ornament worth Rs.12,00,000.00 and despite repeated efforts, she was not ready to live with him. Thereafter, respondent has filed a petition under Sec. 9 of HMA before the Court of Additional District Judge, Ganjbasoda and the Case No.HMA 124A/2014 has been registered. Thereafter they blessed with a child. When the respondent along with his father went to the hospital to see his new born baby, then the appellant and his brothers committed marpeet and misbehaved with them. On 5/10/2015, appellant was ready to live with respondent. Thereafter the petition under Sec. 9 of HMA has been dismissed in absence of both the parties, but after one year on 23/12/2016 appellant along with her brothers and other persons came to the house of respondent and committed marpeet with him. Respondent sustained certain injuries and got admitted in the hospital. Family members of the appellant continuously misbehaved with the respondent and also threatened for life, thereafter false case has been lodged against him for demand of dowry and cruelty. Appellant was living separately in her parental house without any sufficient reason. In these circumstances, opportunity of further cohabitation became impracticable and unsustainable. Appellant has committed cruelty with him, therefore, respondent has filed this petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty.