Judgment - Divorce - Cruelty - Desertion

Court: Rajasthan High Court

Bench: JUSTICE Pradeep Nandrajog, CJ. & Vinit Kumar Mathur

Pooja @ Sajna Vs. Durga Prasad On 10 April 2018

Law Point:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Sections 13(1)(ia), (ib) Cruelty Desertion Respondent-husband duly proved mental cruelty as also desertion without reasonable cause. Direct conflict in testimony of appellant-wife and her father concerning dowry demands Admission that issue of dowry was raised by them after respondent-husband served notice upon appellant-wife to join consortium with him also gives credence to fact that said version of appellant-wife was an after thought — Impugned order passed by Family Court upheld.

JUDGEMENT

Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the trial Court record.

2. Marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 11.5.2005. Petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion for a continuous period of more than 2 years preceding presentation of the petition was filed by the respondent in the year 2013. The same has been allowed vide impugned order dated 1.5.2014.

3. Case pleaded by the respondent was that after the marriage the couple resided at Dhani Kanchaniya. Unfortunately his brother-in-law Narendra died a sudden death on 12.6.2005. His sister-in-law had a Thyroid problem and had minor children to look after. Her brother-in-law was residing and running a restaurant in Rajgarh. To help his sister he shifted to Rajgarh. For said reasons the appellant started troubling his parents and started using foul language against them. The appellant was therefore sent by his parents to reside with him at Rajgarh. After staying with him for some time at Rajgarh she left for her parental house. When she resided with him at Rajgarh her attitude was cold. When he fell sick at Rajgarh the appellant did not care for him. She would threat to hang herself to falsely implicate him and his family members. A false case for dowry demand was foisted upon him.

4. The appellant denied the assertions made and pleaded that on account of dowry harassment she had no option but to leave her matrimonial house.

5. On the pleading of the parties two issues were settled. The first was: whether the appellant inflicted mental cruelty upon the respondent, and the second was: whether she had deserted the respondent without any reasonable cause.

6. At the trial the respondent examined himself as PW-1 and in his examination-in-chief stated facts as pleaded in the petition seeking divorce. The cryptic cross-examination comprised suggestions that what he deposed was wrong and needless to stated he denied the suggestion. He examined one Arun Kumar as PW-2. Arun Kumar is a person having a shop near the residence of Narendra, the deceased brother-in-law of the respondent. He deposed facts to support the testimony of the respondent that the appellant used to quarrel with the respondent and he had seen the same. The cross-examination is cryptic. Suggestions that he was deposing falsely, which he denied. Hanuman Prasad was examined as PW-3 by the respondent who has deposed facts supporting the case of the respondent, of the appellant being of a quarrelsome nature. He also examined Mahendra Kumar as PW-4. He deposed same facts. Liladhar was examined by the respondent as PW-5 who is the maternal uncle of the respondent. He has also supported the version of the respondent.

7. The appellant examined herself as DW-1 and stated that at the matrimonial house her husband used to quarrel with her and at the time of the marriage her in-laws demanded dowry.

8. Relevant would it be to highlight that in the deposition the appellant did not disclose the particulars of the alleged dowry demand i.e. what was demanded by way of dowry at the time of marriage, by whom and when.

9. The appellant examined one Rohitash as DW-2 who simply deposed that the cause of the fight was a dowry demand by the respondent. We note that Rohitash is the maternal uncle of the appellant.

10. Relevant would it be to highlight that what was the dowry demand has not been highlighted by him in his deposition.

11. Phoolchand, father of the appellant was examined by her and we find that he has also been assigned number DW-2. In his deposition he stated that after the marriage the in-laws and the sister of her son-in-law demanded dowry in the form of Rs. 1,00,000 and a motor-cycle. In cross-examination he stated that no demand was made prior to the marriage.

12. We highlight that as per the appellant dowry was demanded before the marriage. As per her father the dowry was demanded after the marriage. We also need to highlight that in the cross-examination of the appellant and her father it is admitted that the issue of dowry demand was raised by them after the respondent served a notice upon the appellant requiring her to join consortium.

13. In matrimonial cases rival versions are supported by the parties through their testimonies and witnesses also tend to support the case of the parties.

14. Thus discrepancies if they emerge in the testimonies of the witnesses become crucial. As noted hereinabove, there is a direct conflict in the testimony of the appellant and her father concerning the dowry demands. The admission that the issue of dowry was raised by them after the respondent served a notice upon the appellant to join consortium with him also gives credence to the fact that the said version of the appellant was an after-thought.

15. Thus, we agree with the view taken by the learned Judge, Family Court that the respondent had duly proved mental cruelty as also desertion without a reasonable cause.

16. It appears that the problem started when the respondent shifted to his widow sister’s residence to look after the restaurant business which her sister’s deceased husband was carrying on at the time of his sudden unfortunate death. Respondent’s sister had (5 of 5) [CMA-1257/2014] minor children. It appears that the appellant was unable to adjust in the house of the sister-in-law.

17. Be that as it may, this is our observation keeping the evidence which was led.

18. The appeal is dismissed.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us