Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 1023
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Appellant A (Husband) Vs. Respondent B (Wife) (Lodha, J.)
HON'BLE CHIEF ARUN MISHRA, HON'BLE SANGEET LODHA, J.
Appellant A (Husband)
Versus
Respondent B (Wife)
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 386 of 2010, decided on 25.10.2012
Subject
Matrimonial - DIVORCE
Act Referred
Headnote
¼d½ eqfLye fookg fo?kVu vf/kfu;e] 1939] /kkjk 2¼viii½ & Øwjrk ds vk/kkj ij fookg fo|Vu dk vk/kkj & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fookg foPNsn dh fMØh eatwj djus gsrq ,d vk/kkj ds :i esa Øwjrk dk vfHkdFku djus okys oSokfgd fooknksa esa lcwr ds ekud ds :i esa U;k;ky; dks vf/klaHkkO;rk dh izcyrk ij lek/kku djuk vko';d gS fd cuk;k x;k vk/kkj lkfcr gksrk gS & ifr ;k iRuh ds lk{; dh lEiqf"V fof/k dk ekeyk ugha gS cfYd U;k;ky;ksa }kjk viuk;k x;k izKk dk fu;e gSA ¼in la[;k 32½
(b) Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, Sec. 3(1)(c); Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939, Sec. 2(viii) — `Mahr' — Divorced woman entitled to an amount equal to sum of `Mahr' or dower agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage or at any time thereafter according to Muslim Law — The "divorced woman" u/Sec. 2(a) to mean a Muslim woman who was married according to Muslim law and has been divorced by or has obtained divorce from her husband in accordance with Muslim law — Held — Entitled for the decree in respect of `Mahr' amount. (Para 37)
Appeal dismissed.
¼[k½ eqfLye efgyk ¼fookg foPNsn ij vf/kdkjksa dk laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1986] /kkjk 3¼1½¼x½( eqfLye fookg fo?kVu vf/kfu;e] 1939] /kkjk 2¼viii½ & ^^esgj** & rykdlqnk efgyk mlds fookg ds le; ;k mlds i'pkr~ fdlh Hkh le; eqfLye fof/k ds vuqlkj mls nsus gsrq lger esgj dh jkf'k ds leku /kujkf'k ikus dh gdnkj gksrh gS & /kkjk 2¼d½ ds rgr ^^rykd lqnk efgyk dk vFkZ gS ,d ,slh efgyk ftldk eqfLye fof/k ls fookg gqvk Fkk rFkk ftls ifr }kjk eqfLye fof/k ds vuqlkj rykd fn;k x;k gks ;k ftlus vius ifr ls rykd ys fy;k gks & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & esgj jkf'k ds lEcU/k esa fMØh dk gdnkj gSA ¼in la[;k 37½
vihy [kkfjt dhA
Rakesh Arora, for Appellant;
R.R. Nagori, Senior Advocate assisted by S.L. Kumawat, for Respondent
2. The cross objections have been filed by the cross objector-wife in Appeal No. 376/10 aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Family Court on issue No. 1 as also against the denial of decree for `Mahr' agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage.
3. The appellant and respondent entered into marriage on 26.12.97, at Jodhpur by performing rites and ceremony in accordance with the custom prevalent in the Muslim community. At the time of marriage, the appellant agreed to pay `Mahr' to the respondent a sum of Rs. 21,000/- in cash and 21 gold asharfees, by way of `Nikahnama' reduced in writing. Out of the wedlock, a son was born on 15.5.99.
4. The respondent preferred an application for dissolution of marriage under Section 2(viii) of the Act of 1939 stating that after the marriage, she came to know that her husband, the appellant herein, is a man of bad character. He was found keeping illicit relations with order girls. That apart, he attempted to force the respondent to lead an immoral life. It was alleged that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as dowry from the respondent's father and no protest being raised, she was beaten up. It was further alleged that the parents of the appellant threatened that if an amount of Rs. 10 lacs is not paid, they will solemnize second marriage of their son, the appellant herein. A few specific incidents of cruelty were set out in the petition which may be summarised thus:
In the month of August, 1998 under a well planned conspiracy, the respondent was taken to a hotel in Delhi saying that the appellant intents to start a new business and therefore, the party entering into joint venture is to be consulted and the business project is to be prepared. The respondent was informed that the person with whom the new business is to be started is coming accompanied by his wife. The said person accompanied by his wife joined the appellant and the respondent in the evening and stayed in the same hotel. Under a planned conspiracy, the respondent was made to consume some thing mixed in the cold drink, as a result thereof, she became unconscious. When she woke up in the morning, she came to know that her husband and the said companion of her husband had sexual intercourse with her in the night. On the complaint being made, no heed was paid by the husband rather, he said that the wife of his companion had made sexual intercourse with him consciously and therefore, if his companion has made sexual intercourse with the respondent then there is nothing objectionable in it and that exchange of the wives is a progressive trend. The respondent was informed that a video film of the incident has also been prepared and if the respondent makes disclosure of the incident occurred, the said video film prepared shall be made public. It was further alleged that when the incident was narrated by the respondent to her mother-in-law, she supporting the appellant, said that if for welfare of the husband, the wife enters into sexual intercourse with somebody else then there is nothing wrong in it.
The appellant and the respondent shifted from Ajmer to Jaipur and thereafter, there was no check on appellant of the parents and consequently, he openly indulged in bad habits which includes taking liquor, entering into home sexual relations and sexual intercourse with other girls. The appellant also created an email ID namely, V
