MANJU WIFE OF MANAK LAL DAUGHTER OF DAL CHAND RAJAK, RESIDENT OF 57, SUKHADIA NAGAR, UNIVERSITY MARG UDAIPUR Vs. MANAK LAL @ MANAK CHAND SON OF SHRI MANGI LAL @ USHA RAM DHOBI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHANLA, TEHSIL MARWAR JUNCTION DISTRICT PALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree passed by Family Court Udaipur in Case No. 162/2005, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the plaintiff-appellant's divorce petition under Sec. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act on 27.08.2008. The petitioner presented her divorce petition on the ground of cruelty stating therein that she was married with respondent on 13.04.2000 at Udaipur and a male progeny was born out of the wedlock on 14/09/2004, both petitioner as well as spouse respondent were employed with Department of Education. It has also been pleaded that the respondent was habitual of beating and abusing his petitioner wife with demand of dowry and used to snatch her salary and she was not being provided with sufficient funds to maintain her son, so was constrained to reside separately from her spouse-respondent and it has also been pleaded that the respondent was a liquor addict, and divorce was solicited on the ground of cruelty. Rebutting the allegations as averred by the petitioner, respondent pleaded in his written statements that the allegations levelled by wife-appellant were baseless and she was not subjected to alleged beating, abuses or demand of dowry by the respondent and it was inter alia pleaded that the respondent never consumed liquor, but he made her appellant wife studied, who without consent of the respondent got herself transferred to Udaipur and always compelled, respondent to get his services transferred to her wish town Udaipur, as well and it has also been pleaded that the respondent preferred a petition under Sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal Rights at Pali, which was decreed in his favour ex-parte, but the appellant-wife did not restitute conjugal rights despite decree and has further prayed for dismissal of the petition.

(2.) Learned Trial Court while framing two issues relating to cruelty and relief tried the matter. Smt. Manju Rajak petitioner submitted her affidavit as well as affidavit of her father Daalchand and one of Smt. Sunder Bai a neighbour, in evidence.

(3.) Perusal of the evidence shows that vitals have emerged from the cross-examination of this appellant witness as she has said that at the time of her marriage, she was in B.A. final and now B.Ed. She has also said that she did M.A. after B.Ed privately and at that time she was staying with her in-laws. She has also said that she had got her services transferred without informing to her husband. She has also said that she got salary of April 2004 by demand draft and has also said that at the time of receiving salary, her husband was not present there. She has also said that it is correct that she did not lodge report against alleged dowry harassment. She has also said that she has not submitted the report with the record, she has not produced witnesses Vijay Laxmi and Natwar Lal, whereas she has said that at the time of alleged beating, neighbours Vijay Laxmi and Natwar Lal were present, she has also said that after deduction she was getting Rs.7000 per month towards salary.