LAWS(RAJ)-2008-2-120

ANIL SHARMA Vs. SMT. MAMTA SHARMA

Decided On February 14, 2008
ANIL SHARMA Appellant
V/S
Smt. Mamta Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Sec. 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 arising out of case No. 240/2003 (Anil Sharma v/s. Smt. Mamta Sharma) passed by the Judge, Family Court No. 2, Jaipur whereby the application filed under Sec. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for dissolution of marriage has been rejected vide impugned judgment on the ground that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly particularly that the respondent is mentally ill and does not discharge the marital obligations.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. .

(3.) Out of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the issues "whether the respondent -wife is suffering from mental disorder which is not curable even after taking continuous treatment and she is not expected to live with the appellant." The onus of proof was on the appellant. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence, dismissed the application holding that because of mal -treatment of the appellant and her compulsion, the respondent is living with her parents and there is no truth in the allegations levelled by the appellant against the respondent. Perusal of the record shows that the learned trial Judge has recorded in the course of impugned order that several times the respondent was mal -treated and beaten by the appellant and turned out from the house. Proved fact has also been recorded that she was forcibly shunted out from the home. It is also proved that to get rid of the respondent, the appellant and his family members pretended that they are going to participate in the marriage at Kanpur and she should also accompany them. On this pretext, they started journey on 03.02.1998 by rail for Kanpur and while the train reached at Agra Fort Railway Station, she was forcibly dropped at the Station. Under such compulsion she went to her parents. It exhibits the cruel and harassive attitude of the appellant that instead of providing shelter and treatment, her life has been made miserable to live.