RAMESH JANGID ALIAS RAMESHWAR JANGID Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Saddled with a married life which no longer has any content, but only has a form, the appellant challenges the judgment dated 9-2-2001 passed by Family Court, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appellant's application for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act', for short). The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-husband was married to the respondent-wife on 1-11-1987 at Ajmer according to the Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock a daughter Swati was born on 18-12-1989. According to the appellant, from the very beginning, the marriage had hit rough weather. The wife kept on pressurizing the appellant to leave his parents and to shift with her parents and to live there as a "Ghar Javai". However, as the appellant was the only earning member of the family, he did not think it morally upright to abandon his aged parents and his younger brother. Since the appellant refused to succumb to the wife's pressure, she started insulting him by claiming that he was ill-educated, and orthodox in his beliefs and thinking. She further started insulting the in- laws. He further alleged that on 24-3-1993 the wife left the matrimonial home on the pretext that she is returning to her parental home only for few days. However, as she did not come back even after a lapse of 20 days, the appellant went to his in-laws place to bring her back. But, to his utter surprise, the wife refused to come back to the matrimonial home. Even after his daughter was born, his in-laws did not permit him to meet the child or to meet his wife. Therefore, the appellant moved an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent-wife. It was only in the Court that the parties compromised and the respondent-wife was directed to accompany the appellant to Abu Road. Although the respondent-wife accompanied the husband to Abu Road, but there was no change in her behaviour towards the appellant. When the appellant tried to re-establish a physical relationship with the wife, on one pretext or the other she denied him the physical union. Since the parties had compromised, the application under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed on 6-3-1993.

(2.) Thereafter, the parties stayed at Ajmer for two days. But during these two days, the appellant discovered, to his shock and dismay, that "some strangers were visiting his wife. His wife would leave with the strangers. When he asked her about these strangers, she did not give him any satisfactory explanation. On 8-3-1993, allegedly the appellant was assaulted by few anti-social elements who told him not to enquire about his wife's relationship with these strangers. On 9-3-1993 the parties left to continue their stay at Abu Road. But even there, the wife continued her denial of physical relationship and continued her verbal abuse towards the appellant. In these circumstances, the appellant filed an application under Section 13 of the Act. However, on 28-1-1995 the parties again compromised and the wife agreed to live with the husband in peace and tranquillity. But despite her statement made before the Court, she continued to misbehave with the appellant and his family members. The appellants father-in-law clearly told him that in case he wanted a divorce with his daughter all he had to do was to pay Rs. 50,000/- and the wife would be agreeable for a divorce. Meanwhile, it seems that the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as "the Code", for short). Vide order dated 12-12- 1995, the learned Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 300/- for the maintenance of the wife and Rs. 200/- for the maintenance of the daughter per month. Their relations deteriorated further when on 18-12-1997 the appellant's in-laws, including a brother-in-law, came and assaulted the appellant. The appellant filed an FIR, for offence under Sections 147,149,323, 452 and 427, IPC against in-laws. The trial is still continuing in the said case. The appellant has further alleged that the wife has deserted him since 24-3-1993 without any reasonable justification. Thus, again he filed an application under Section 13 of the Act before the Family Court, Ajmer.

(3.) The wife submitted her written statement and denied all the averments made by the appellant. According to her, it is the appellant and his family members who have treated her cruelly, who have repeatedly demanded dowry from her and her family members and who have abandoned her. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Family Court framed four issues. In order to support his case the appellant examined four witnesses besides himself. On the other hand, the respondent examined two more witnesses beside herself. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Court dismissed the application vide its judgment dated 9-2-2001. Hence this appeal before this Court.