RAJANTI Vs. PHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is one of the rarest of the rare cases where though the court is wanting to help the petitioner is unable to do so precisely for three reasons, one firstly, obstinacy of the parents in not realising the future of their daughter, secondly, the daughter, herself being in such a great influence of her father that she is unable to be persuaded for her own benefit despite the fact that court intended to secure a future for her and thirdly, the conflict between the law and conscious.

(2.) RAJANTI , who is a divorcee, now has approached this Court udder Section 482, Cr.PC against the judgment dated 7 -11 -1986 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City camp Hindaun confirming the order of Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun dated 17th May, 1983.

(3.) THIS application was opposed to by non -petitioner, Dr. Phool. He admitted that they were married on 25 -4 -1971. His case is that she has made false allegations about cruelty and in fact it was she who bad deserted him and is living with her parents. His further case is that he is still a student her allegation about his income is highly exorbitant and is totally false. His parents are also financially very weak and with great difficulty they are giving him medical education. He raised some additional pleas and stated that he was a minor when he got married and in fact some of the relations induced his father for this marriage. According to him, the petitioner, Smt. Rajanti, and her father are not belivers of God (Nanstik) while he and his parents are religious minded persons and, therefore, immediately after marriage, there became some difference in the family in as much as petitioner's father bad even broken the statue of God Hanumanji. He has also been imprisoned in the past for his such activities and his daughter i.e. his wife is also going the same way. He further pleaded that he made several efferts to bring her but he was ill -treated and beaten by his in -laws to the extent that he had to gel himself treated by a Doctor. His further case is that when he had gone to Ajmer for his study in Medical College, she left his partners who are old aged persons and never returned. This reply was submitted as early as 10th June, 1981. Before this reply was filed, the court had directed to proceed ex -parte which order was set aside by order dated 28th May, 1981 on payment of cost of Rs. 60/ -. An opportunity was given because the non -petitioner was under treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay. Parties led evidence and the petition was dismissed on 17th May, 1983. Daring the course of trial, the evidence produced by the parties included some of the letters alleged to have been written by the Don -petitioner to the petitioner's family members: and herself. It is also pertienent to mention here that non -petitioner Dr. Phool filed a copy of the judgment of District Judge, Ajmer by which a decree of divorce had been granted in favour of the non -petitioner vide judgment dated 24th August, 1982. The learned Magistrate while rejecting the application held the present case to be a case of desertion by wife of her husband and also took note of the decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. She challenged the order of the learned Magistrate in appeal before Additional Sessions Judge, who held that no appeal is maintainable. A prayer was made to treat this as a revision but the learned Additional Sessions Judge holding that there is no legal point involved and, therefore, he refused to convert it as a revision petition and dismissed the same. How ever, for this short purpose, the case remained pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for almost 3.5 years. Thereafter, the present application has been filed.