RAJKISHORE SHARMA Vs. SHARDA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLEGAING mental and physical cruelty by the wife Smt. Sharda Devi, a petition for divorce Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Jaipur, by the petitioner. The said petition was dismissed on 26th July, 1986 and therefore, the present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The various submissions which were raised before the Judge, Family Court have been reiterated.

(2.) IN this case, the marriage between the parties was performed on 30th June, 1975. Out of this wedlock, a son was borne on 23rd December, 1979 and a daughter was borne on 15.12.1982. The petitioner appellant left his parental house on 23rd December, 1982 and the non -petitioner respondent is living with her father -in -law and mother -in -law. The reason for leaving the said house is said to be cruelty by the respondent and it has been alleged that she has never been fulfilled her obligations and never prepared meals and given to the petitioner in time and that whenever any guest came in the house she used to abuse the petitioner and beat her son. It is further submitted that the respondent has extended her limits by beating the petitioner on two days prior to Raksha Bandhan of 1980 and on the eve of Deepawali of 1981 and has threatened to commit suicide if the petitioner lived in the house and she would even kill her son. On the eve of birth day of Rakesh on 23rd December, 1982 she has attempted to commit suicide and poured kerosene on her and her son. The respondent has clearly stated that even if the petitioner made any attempt to cohabit or lived in the same house, the respondent threatened to commit suicide or would kill her son and therefore, in spite of the fact that the petitioner being the only son of his parent left the house on 23rd December, 1982 on account of this cruelty. It has also been submitted that the respondent has deserted the petitioner for continuous period not less than two years immediately proceeding the presentation of the petition. Therefore, he is entitled for a decree for divorce.

(3.) THE learned Judge, Family Court came to the conclusion that the statement given by him were not reliable inasmuch as the petitioner being the incharge/Manager of the School where Kumari Kamalesh Pareek was a teacher and for which photo -graphs were also produced. In the statements in respect of school where 8 teachers and one lady teacher are there, it is impossible to believe that he does not remember Kumari Kamalesh Pareek. It was also observed that the petitioner being the only son, had there been any misconduct or misbehaviour or cruelty to the extent as alleged, the parent of the petitioner would not have kept the respondent alongwith childrenwith them. No relative witness was produced.