RAM PRAVESH SINGH Vs. SUDAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Sub-Judge, Rohtash at Sasaram in Matrimonial Suit No. 7 of 1991.

(2.) The appellant as plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit for a decree as contemplated under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and it was contended by the plaintiff that the marriage was solemnised between the two about seven years prior to the filing of the petition for divorce and after one year Diragaman was made and soon after the respondent-wife Sudama Devi came to the matrimonial home. It could be detected that she was not behaving properly not only with the family members of the plaintiff-appellant but also with him. She was not a loyal wife as she was having illicit relationship with various other persons. Names of three persons were mentioned in the divorce petition itself. It was further alleged that she used to go out of the matrimonial home during the night hours without the permission of the husband and that before marriage when the respondent was at her father's place she was having illicit relationship with somebody else and, as such, she became pregnant and she was aborted it as a result of which she became devoid of giving birth to a child in future. It was also alleged in the petition that at the time of marriage the plaintiff-appellant was a minor and the respondent Sudama Devi was a major one, and much aged than the plaintiff-appellant. At the time of marriage no consent was taken from the plaintiff-appellant and, as such, the marriage was not valid but the petition had been filed only under Section 13 of the Divorce Act. No prayer had been made for declaration of the marriage as void.

(3.) All the allegations brought in the divorce petition have been categorically denied by the wife-respondent. She stated that only to cover up the misdeeds of the plaintiff-appellant the present divorce petition have been filed and it is nothing but a retaliation of the criminal case lodged by the respondent against the plaintiff-appellant and other family members. Her case was that after much negotiation the marriage was solemnised between the two and at the time of marriage the plaintiff-appellant was five years old than her half and after one year of marriage Diragaman was made then she came to the matrimonial home and she attempted and made all efforts to remain as a loyal wife and the daughter-in-law in the family of her husband but for demand of a motorcycle she was being tortured by the family members and time again she had to go back to her father's place but she was again brought to matrimonial home on assurance being given by the plaintiff-appellant to behave with her properly. But such assurance remained futile. She has further alleged that a male child was born in the wedlock with her through the plaintiff-appellant and that boy was snatched away from the lap by the plaintiff-appellant and his mother and she was driven out from her matrimonial home as a result of which she came to stay at her parental home and lodged information to the Police. On investigation, it appears that such police was found to be a false one but that a son was born to the respondent in the wedlock has not been categorically denied from the side of the plaintiff-appellant. Be it what it may, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties several issues were framed by the learned Court below. Both parties adduced evidence also in support of their respective cases. On the issue of adultery as alleged from the side of the plaintiff-appellant three witnesses have been examined and wild allegation was brought by the plaintiff-appellant against the wife respondent to the effect that she had got illicit relationship with the father and son both, namely, Vindyachal Pathak and his son and evidence was also adduced from the mouth of one of the witnesses that respondent was living with Vindyachal Pathak. It cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that father and son would keep a woman in the same house and having illicit relationship with the same woman but that has also been brought in the case and the learned Court below has rightly disbelieved that fact. Moreover it appears that the adulterous as had been mentioned were old persons and they were the witnesses of the respondent in her criminal case and it was alleged by her that such illicit relationship with those persons had been brought only to discredit her witnesses in the criminal case. Rightly the issue of adultery has been disbelieved. Moreover none of the adulterous had been made parties in the divorce case. On the ground of desertion it could not be proved that the respondent on her own choice had left the matrimonial home deserting the plaintiff-appellant. Regarding cruelty there are allegations from both sides. After considering the evidence on record learned Court below had specifically held that this divorce petition is nothing but a retaliation of the criminal case lodged by the respondent. Moreover during the course of trial of the divorce petition it could come out from the mouth of one of the witnesses from the plaintiff appellant to the effect that before filing of the divorce petition he had already married a second wife and through that second wife he has got a child. Thus the plaintiff-appellant did not come with clean hands. Only to give status to his second wife, perhaps he felt that the divorce was necessary from the first wife and hence divorce petition was filed.