SMT. SANTOSH W/O RAMSWAROOP D/O BHANWAR LAL, BY CASTE PRAJAPAT, RESIDENT OF GUJRATI KUMAHARON KA MOHALLA, MERTA CITY Vs. RAMSWAROOP S/O GANESHLAL, B/C PRAJAPATI, R/O KUMHARWADA, NAGAUR (RAJASTHAN)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeals arise out of a soured matrimonial relationship between the appellant and the respondent. They have therefore been heard together and are being disposed by a common order.

(2.) Civil Misc. Appeal 368 of 2006 has been preferred against the judgment and decree for restitution of conjugal rights granted to the respondent under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) dated 09.11.2004 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Civil Suit (Hindu Marriage) Case No. 8 of 2002. Civil Misc. Appeal 481 of 2008 arises from the judgment and decree for divorce granted to the respondent dated 11.05.2007 in Civil Misc. (Hindu Marriage) Case No. 01 of 2006 by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagaur under Sec. 13(1A)(ii) of the Act consequent to the failure of the appellant to abide by the decree for restitution of conjugal rights. Civil Misc. Appeal 1856 of 2014 assails order dated 24.06.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 27 of 2013 (87/2004) by the Family Judge, Merta, District Nagaur dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Crimial P.C. ). Civil Misc. Appeal 2518 of 2011 arises from the order dated 10.04.2008 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagaur in Civil Suit (Guardian and Wards) Case No. 1 of 2006 under Sec. 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Guardianship Act ) granting custody of the two minor children Bharat and Hansraj to the respondent. Counsel for the parties are unanimous that the last appeal has become infructuous by event of time as the two children have since attained majority.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant submits that the decree for restitution of the conjugal rights has been granted without proper consideration of the contentions of the appellant in its correct perspective and upon erroneous appreciation and misreading of her evidence. The respondent was habituated to drugs and alcohol and would beat her and the children who were minor at the relevant time. The fact that she may have stayed for ten years in the matrimonial home after marriage under compulsion for societal reasons tolerating the respondent's behaviour towards her and the minor children without complaining, has been completely misunderstood and misconstrued by the court below. She did not complain in the hope and expectation that the respondent would change his behaviour and the matrimonial relationship could be saved. She had to leave the matrimonial home under compulsion for reasonable cause. She never filed any criminal prosecution even with regard to the assaults and harassment for dowry. All these would have only aggravated the situation jeopardising all possibilities for revival or continuance of the matrimonial relationship. These aspects have not been properly considered and do not find any consideration.