Specific and material evidence is essential to prove allegations of cruelty in divorce cases under the Hindu Marriage Act, and trial court findings on oral evidence are generally not interfered with on appeal.

JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-9-2000 passed by the Family Court No. 4, Pune, in P.A. No. 511 of 1998, dismissing the petition filed by appellant wife praying for divorce in the ground of cruelty.

THE FACTS

The facts in brief are as under:

2. The petitioner is Hindu and respondent is a Christian converted to Hindu Religion. Both of them got married on 18-10-1991.

3. It appears that immediately after the marriage sometime in the month of June 1992, matrimonial dispute dropped up amongst the parties to this appeal which resulted in matrimonial litigation being P.A. No. 295/92 wherein petitioner wife prayed for decree of annulment of marriage and declaration to that effect under section 5 read with sections 1 and 12(1)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said petition following issues were framed and tried and after full trial petitioner wife suffered adverse findings on all the issues, summary of which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference along with conclusions and findings recorded thereon:

POINTS FINDINGS

i) Whether the petitioner proves that her consent for No.

marriage was obtained by practising fraud on her

by the respondent?

ii) Whether the petitioner proves that she was forced No.

to sign the marriage registration form in the hotel?

iiA) Whether the petitioner proves that she merely No.

signed the blank forms of marriage registration ceremony?

iii) Whether the respondent provides that he was Yes.

converted to Hindu religion on 10-7-1991?

iv) Whether the respondent proves that his marriage Yes.

with petitioners was performed according to Hindu

religion and as per their custom in hotel tourist on

18th October, 1991

v) Whether the alleged marriage is legal and valid? Yes.

vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree for No.

injunction as prayed for?

viA) Is the petitioner entitled to a decree of nullity No.

regarding the alleged marriage?

4. On the aforesaid findings, the petition filed by the petitioner wife came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24-12-1994. The said judgment and decree was subject matter of challenge in the Family Court Appeal No. 19 of 1995 before this Court. The said Family Court appeal, ultimately came to be dismissed by order dated 24th June, 1997. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 24th June, 1997 was also challenged before the Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 2741 of 1998; which also came to be dismissed by order dated 2nd May, 2000. Thus, it would be clear that the findings recorded in the earlier round of litigation have become final and conclusive; whereunder the marriage between the parties was held to be legal and valid.

5. Having lost the above round of litigation right upto the Apex Court, second litigation came to be instituted at the instance of the appellant-wife under section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking decree of divorce on the ground that respondent husband was demanding Rs. 25 lacs to extend his consent for dissolving marriage by consent of parties and that he defamed her in the society by spreading damaging rumours about her which made her difficult to live in the society. In other words, the present petition for divorce was grounded on the allegations of cruelty based on two counts, alleged illegal demand of Rs. 25 lacs and spreading damaging rumours in the society, making it difficult for her to stay in the society.

6. A bare look at the pleadings of the divorce petition would show that no material facts with material particulars in support of the allegations made are to be found in the petition filed before the Family Court. The pleadings are absolutely vague and general. No details of the alleged threats alleged to have been given on phone were disclosed in the petition. How situation became dangerous is not to be found in the petition. What were the derogatory rumours which spread by respondent have also not been disclosed in the petition.

7. On being noticed, respondent appeared

Click Here to Read the rest of this document