SURESH CHANDRA Vs. MANJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Suresh Chandra, has challenged the judgment dated 08.07.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajsamand whereby the learned Judge has granted a decree of divorce in favour of respondent-wife, Smt. Mangu. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant and respondent were married on 18.06.2005 according to the Hindu rites and customs. According to the respondent-wife, immediately after her marriage, she stayed with the appellant and his elder brother. However, from the very first day, both the appellant and his elder brother ridiculed her about the dowry and started demanding more dowry. Just eight days thereafter, the appellant's elder brother threw them out of the house and out of his school at Udaipur and told the respondent- wife that her father had failed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry. Since both the appellant and the respondent were homeless, the respondent's father rented a room for them at Udaipur. According to the respondent, her father continued to pay the rent. THE appellant and the respondent stayed in the said room for one month. However, during this period, according to the respondent, the appellant used to assault her practically every day and use to demand that she should ask her father to pay Rs.2,00,000/-. THEreafter, he insisted that her father should find an accommodation at Kakorli, otherwise he would leave her. Consequently, the respondent's father located an accommodation at Kakroli and shifted them there. Even at Kakroli, the appellant continued to misbehave with her. Every time, when she would go out of the house, he would cast aspersion on her character and would claim that "she is going out of the house in order to meet her lover". Despite the fact that twice the appellant was granted employment by the respondent's brother, at his marble factory, on both the occasion, he left the job without any explanation. THE appellant used to demand dowry even from her brother. Thus, she filed an application under Section 13 read with Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act ('the Act', for short). THE Appellant filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint.

(2.) IN order to support her case, the respondent-wife examined three witnesses and submitted three documents. IN turn, the appellant examined three witnesses and also submitted three documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, by judgment dated 08.07.2010, the learned Judge granted the divorce in favour of respondent-wife. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. Jawan Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has overlooked the fact that even prior to the filing of the divorce petition by the respondent, the appellant had already filed an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Thus, clearly the appellant wanted to peacefully cohabit with the respondent-wife. But she had left him without any rhyme or reason. Hence, the fault lay with the respondent. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in granting divorce on the ground of cruelty as the erring party was the respondent-wife herself. Moreover, she could not be given the benefit of her own fault. Hence, the learned counsel has prayed that the impugned judgment should be interfered with.