LICHHAMA (SMT.) Vs. RUPA RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment and decree dt. 11.04.1996 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nagaur in Civil Misc. Case No. 49/90 by which the trial Court granted decree for divorce in favour of respondent -husband against the appellant -wife.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the marriage of the appellant and respondent took place on 27.04.1971 in a small village Nimba -ka -bas. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, the husband was of the age of 13 years and the wife was of the age of 12 years. According to the applicantrespondenthusband, the marriage was never consummated initially because of the tender age of the appellant and the respondent. The appellant for the first time, came in the house of the respondent only in the year 1975, four years after the marriage after attaining age of understanding but at that time the applicant -respondent was sick and, therefore, there was no physical relation established between the appellant and the respondent. According to the applicant -respondent, the appellant non -applicant wife lived with the respondent -applicant upto 1984 only. During this period of 13 years from the time of marriage of 9 years from the time of coming of appellant to the house of the respondent, no physical relation established between the two.

(3.) THE non -applicant wife submitted detailed reply and submitted that she lived with her husband and also had physical relations with her husband. She also gave birth to one child who subsequently died. It is submitted that about 7 -8 years before she was turned out by respondent and his family members after giving beating. It is submitted that the appellant tried to settle the matter with the intervention of number of persons and several efforts were made. She denied her relationship with Megha Ram and Deva Ram and also submitted that in fact Megha Ram and Deva Ram are their close relations and the applicant -respondent has levelled false allegations so that he can get rid of from the appellant. She also stated that she gave birth to one child of the respondent and not of any other person. The respondent appellant also submitted that after living at his brother s house for some time and after failing in all reconciliation efforts, she submitted a petition for getting maintenance on 03.05.1990 which was decided by the Court in favour of the appellant.