SAKRI ALIAS YASODA Vs. CHHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question involved in this appeal is whether the parties mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage by divorce in accordance with the custom prevalent in their community on November 6, 1968. It may be mentioned here that there is no dispute regarding the existence of custom of divorce by mutual agreement in the community of the parties. In order to prove divorce by mutual agreement, the non petitioner examined three witnesses besides herself. DW1 Mst. Sakri alias Yasoda, who is appellant before me, has deposed that the ceremony of divorce took place between the parties about 21 months ago at her house in presence of her husband and in the presence of PW3 Bhanwarlal and PW2 Chotuji from the side of her husband and in presence of her father Mangilal and her uncle Babulal. She has further deposed that all clothes & ornaments which she had received earlier from her husband's house were returned to her husband and it was agreed between the parties that both of them would be free to remarry as they liked. She is supported by the statement of her father Mangilal DW4, Ramlal DW2 and Bansilal DW5. It may be mentioned here that DW1 Yasoda is the non -petitioner, DW4 Mangi Lal is her father and DW 5 Bansilal'S sister is married to her uncle. The only disinterested witness DW2 Ramlal. The Court below has disbelieved the statements of all these witnesses. It is admitted that no document of divorce was written between the parties. It is also admitted that even no receipt as to the return of the ornaments and clothes was obtained by the non -petitioner, From the evidence of DW1 Yasoda, DW2 Ramlal, DW4 Mangilal and DW 5 Bansilal, It appears that on that very day, divorce took place between Mst. Gogli and Mohanlal. This Mohanlal is none else but the brother of petitioner Chhanwarlal. It is admitted by DW2 Ramlal that a deed of divorce was written between Mohanlal and Mst. Gogli. It further appeals from the evidence of these witnesses that the divorce between the parties to place due to divorce between Mohanlal and Mst. Gogli. It that was so, it was all the more necessary that there ought to have been some document evidencing divorce or dissolution of marriage between the parties. Moreover, a perusal of the statement of non -petitioner -Yasoda shows that the divorce took place in presence of PW3 Bhanwarlal and PW2 Chhotuji, but it is significant to note that no question was put to them in cross -examination whether the divorce between the parties took place in their presence. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the learned District Judge was, in my opinion, justified in disbelieving the testimony of DW1 Yasoda alias Sakri, DW2 Ramlal, DW4 Mangilal and DW5 Bansilal. He has rightly held that the non -petitioner failed to prove divorce between the parties.

(2.) No other point has been pressed.

(3.) The appeal fails and is dismissed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs in this Court.