SATYA NARAIN Vs. MAMTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband-appellant is aggrieved by the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Udaipur from the respondent-wife Smt. Mamta. The respondent-wife Smt. Mamta filed divorce petition on the grounds that ever since they were married the appellant-husband started pressurising her to get more offerings from her parents. He started beating her and he went even to the extent of turning her out of the house. In this process, the husband came into contact with another lady Saroj, who was an employee in the Medical Department and started living with her. Not only did he start living with the said Saroj, out of their relationship a daughter was also born. According to the allegations of wife-respondent, a son was born from the wedlock and this child was taken away by the husband and he kept the child with Smt. Saroj at her place of service. The defendant-husband contested the petition. He denied that he has ever illtreated the wife. She has on her own volition started living with her father. Defendanthusband also denied the fact that he has any relationship with Smt. Saroj who is a 'sukhwal brahmin' and is happily married to one Krishna Datt Sukhwal and lives with him. Therefore, there is no question of his living with that lady.

(2.) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed- one related to cruelty, other related to second marriage of husband-defendant and the third was for relief. On all counts, the trial Court had come to conclusion that the respondent-wife that a case of petitioner before the trial Court, has succeeded in proving her case and believing case of the wife that a case of cruelty was held proved and it was also held proved that the defendant-husband has contracted a second marriage. In this view of the findings, the trial Court ordered dissolution of marriage.

(3.) In this appeal, appellant assails the findings of the trial Court and says that the trial Court has erroneously held cruelty proved against him. According to learned counsel for the appellant whatever has been alleged does not constitute a weighty and strong ground but a sheer wear and tear of the matrimonial life. By placing reliance on a judgment in Russel v. Russel, 1995 PD 315 learned counsel for the appellant stated that - cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and injustifiable conduct of such a character, as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger.