REN PRAKASH Vs. SNEH LATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-petitioner (Husband) (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the judgment and order dated 5-12-1996 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 261/95, by which he dismissed the petition of the petitioner for seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty as defined under S. 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') against the respondent non-petitioner (Wife) (hereinafter referred to as 'the non-petitioner).

(2.) It arises in the following circumstances :- The petitioner filed a petition under S.13 of the Act of 1955 on 15-12-1995 in the Family Court, Udaipur alleging inter alia that he was married with the non-petitioner on 10-12-1994 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. However, since marriage the relations between the family of the petitioner with the non-petitioner have not been cordial as non-petitioner used to make quarrel on every matter. It is further alleged that when the petitioner and non-petitioner after marriage made a honey-moon trip in Bangalore, Ooti, at that time also, she used to make quarrel for which petitioner suffered mental agony. It is further alleged that non-petitioner is a Teacher in the Government School in Keshariyaji and after marriage, she used to live more time in her parents house and devoted less time with the company of the petitioner at Udaipur and she used to go Keshariyaji daily and returned back in the evening and many times from Keshariyaji, she used to go to Dungarpur where her parents live. Therefore, she has intentionally deprived the petitioner of the matrimonial benefits and apart from this, she has taken a room at Keshariyaji and started living there and she has also taken her goods there and she came to the house of the petitioner in the month of October, 1995 and on 17th October, she started quarrelling with the petitioner and parents of the petitioner and also threatened for breaking the marriage and also threatened that she will commit suicide by taking poison etc. and on the same day she left the house of the petitioner finally. Not only this, it is further alleged that she has also made false allegations about the character of father of the petitioner and since the economic condition of the petitioner are not very well, therefore, he cannot live in a separate house at Udaipur. Thus, behaviour of the non-petitioner with the petitioner amounts to cruelty from both point of view mental as well as physical. It is further alleged that petitioner was also threatended by the brothers of the non-petitioner, namely, Davendra and Narendra and, therefore, petitioner had to file a petition under Ss. 107, 116(3), Cr. P.C. in the Court of City Magistrate, Udaipur. It is further alleged that since 17-10-1995, she has left the house of the petitioner and has gone to the house of her parents. Thus, the petitioner seeks divorce on the ground of cruelty as defined in S.13(1)(i-a) of the Act of 1955. The petition of the petitioner was contested by the non-petitioner by filing a reply on 19-2-1996. In that reply, the non-petitioner has denied all the allegations made by the petitioner against her, but on the contrary, it has been alleged by her that so far as working as Teacher in Keshariyaji is concerned, she was doing that job before her marriage and she has further stated that she used to go there daily and come back daily and she was fulfilling all the duties and obligations which a wife has to fulfil, but the petitioner and parents of the petitioner used to torture her on the ground of dowry and they used to torture her on other grounds also and they also demanded money from her bank account and she was pregnant and her pregnancy was in an advanced stage of eight months, even then she tried her best to fulfil her obligations, but even then she was tortured by them and she is still ready to live with her husband i.e. petitioner. Hence, it was prayed that petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court framed the following issues on 18-3-1996 and one more issue was added on 1-7-1996. In support of his case, the petitioner examined as many as six witnesses and in the rebuttal, two witnesses were examined by the non-petitioner. After consideration of the evidence led by both the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court decided issue No.2 pertaining to jurisdiction against the non-petitioner. However, he decided issue No. 1 against the petitioner holding that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he was treated with cruelty by non-petitioner. Hence, the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur through his judgment and order dated 5-12-1996 dismissed the petition of the petitioner filed under S. 13 of the Act of 1955. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 5-12-1996 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.

(3.) In this appeal, the following contentions have been made by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner :-