Court:RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Bench: JUSTICE Shiv Kumar Sharma & Khem Chand Sharma
SMT. RUKMANI DEVI Vs. BADRI NARAYAN On 16 July 2001
Wife Refused to Cook Food and Insulted Husband in Presence of his Relations : She does not Want to Live with Husband : Decree of Divorce Confirmed.
Instant miscellaneous appeal impugns the decree and judgment dated April 6, 1992 of the learned Judge Family Court, Ajmer whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 1955 Act) was allowed and decree of divorce was granted in favour of the respondent-husband.
2. The appellant-wife has assailed the impugned decree and judgment on the ground that the evidence produced by the respondent-husband was not sufficient to prove cruelty on the part of the appellant-wife. The parties were married on June 22, 1972 according to the Hindu rites at Delhi. Both lived together as husband and wife at Ajmer. In 1985 a girl was born out of their wedlock, who expired. The husband-respondent instituted a petition under Section 13 of the 1955 Act on the ground of cruelty. The wife-appellant denied the allegations by submitting written statement. As many as 7 issues were framed by the learned Family Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties which have been incorporated in the impugned judgment. The husband-respondent produced as many as 8 witnesses in support of his petition whereas the appellant-wife examined 3 witnesses. The learned Family Court vide the impugned judgment allowed the petition and granted the decree of divorce in favour of the husband-respondent.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scanned the record. Issues 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are related to cruel behaviour of the wife-appellant. A close look at the material on record reveals that a criminal case under Sections 498A and 406, I.P.C. was registered against the husband-respondent and his relations on the basis of report of the wife-appellant. After investigation in the case charge sheet was filed but the learned Metropolitan Magistrate New Delhi vide order dated November 1, 1989 discharged the accused persons on the ground that the Courts at Delhi has no jurisdiction. It was observed in the order that initially the complaint was lodged at Police Station Ajmer and on the basis of same allegations it was again lodged at Delhi. It appears that the wife-appellant did not pursue criminal actions further.
4. A look at the statement of the wife-appellant goes to show that she does not want to live with the husband-respondent. An attempt was made by the learned Family Court to pursuade the parties to live together but the wife-appellant did not agree to reside with the husband-respondent.
5. In the petition it was pleaded by the husband-respondent that the wife-appellant refused to cook food as and when required and insulted him in the presence of his relations and friends. In support of this corroborative evidence of Bhagwati A.W. 2, Munni Devi A.W. 3, Mewaram A.W. 4, and Nanak Ram A.W. 5 has been produced. We do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence produced by the husband-respondent.
6. The learned Counsel appearing for the wife-appellant placed reliance on S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani, I (1999) DMC 628 (SC)=III (1999) SLT 318=(1999) 3 SCC 620; Adhyaatmam Bhaamini v. Jagdish Ambalal Shah, I (1997) DMC 472 (SC)=(1997) 9 SCC 471, and J.L. Nanda v. Smt. Veena Nanda, I (1988) DMC 381 (SC)=1988 SCC (Suppl.) 112. But the ratio of the said cases is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Issues 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have rightly been decided by the learned Family Court in favour of the husband-respondent. We do not see any illegality in the findings arrived at by the learned Court below.
7. The appeal has no merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. The record of the case be sent to the Court below.