SHAHMALI Vs. AB REHMAN HAJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Second Appeal arises out of the following facts.

(2.) THE plaintiff -appellant filed a suit for the dissolution of marriage with the defendant -respondent in the court of Munsiff Kulgam alleging inter alia physical and mental cruelly being perpetrated against her by her husband -the respondent. The respondent at the trial denied the existence of all the charges on the basis of which the dissolution of marriage bad been sought. He specifically denied having caused any mental or physical or any other type of cruelty to the appellant. The following issues were framed by the trial court on the basis of pleadings: (1) Whether the plaintiffs father had contracted the plaintiffs marriage in greed during her minority? O.P.P. (2) Whether the defendant was beating the plaintiff and had subjected her to mental cruelty? O.P.P. (3) Whether the defendant had turned out the plaintiff three years before without clothing and thereafter has not maintained her? O.P.P. (4) Whether the defendant had levelled false charge of adultery against her and therefore put her to mental worry? O.P.P. (5) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? O.P.D. (6) Relief? O.P.P.

(3.) BOTH the parties led evidence and the learned trial court after a careful appreciation of the same passed a decree for dissolution of marriage on the basis that the appellant had been successful in proving issues Nos 2 and 4, and in consequence held that the respondent has been proved to have caused mental and physical cruelty to the appellant and also that false allegations of unchastity have been levelled by him against his wife. With regard to the rest of the issues the trial court was of the view that the plaintiff has not been able to prove the issues. The trial Court held that there was ample evidence on record to show that the appellant had been subjected to incessant beating by the respondent and that the respondent has been levelling false charges of adultery against the appellant. On the basis of the evidence therefore the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff -appellant, vide its order dated 22 -3 -1975. The Defendant -respondent took an appeal to the District Judge, Anantnag. The learned first appellate court took a different view of the evidence produced by the plaintiff -appellant in the trial court and was of the opinion that the trial court has not assessed the evidence in the manner it should have. It was further observed by the learned first appellate court that the evidence led by the plaintiff -appellant in the trial court was so lose and incoherent and self contradictory that no reliance can be safely placed on such evidence. The learned 1st appellate court came to the conclusion therefore that the plaintiff -appellant had failed to establish her case with regard to cruelty and false imputations of adultery. The judgment and decree of the trial court was therefore set aside and the suit of the plaintiff -appellant was ordered to be dismissed. It was against this order of the first appellant court that his second appeal has been filed.