Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 158
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Nathulal Vs. Nathi Bai (Ranka, J.)
HON'BLE AJAY RASTOGI, J.
HON'BLE J.K. RANKA, J.
Nathulal
Versus
Nathi Bai
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.244 of 1993, decided on 31.05.2016
Ravi Kasliwal, for Appellant;
Suresh Pareek, Sr. Counsel, assisted by N.C. Sharma, for Respondent
Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sec. 13 — Divorce petition — Allegation of cruelty to husband — Respondent wife was in habit of misbehaving with aged parents of the husband and with husband himself and his brother — Threatening by wife that she will put on end to her life or kill the appellant, abusing the husband time and again and threatening that she will make him loose his job, complaints of independent persons regarding her quarrelsome and uncalled for behaviour — A case of cruelty is made out — Both are living separately since 27 years — Held — It is said to be irretrievable breakdown of marriage or failed marriage — Marriage stand dissolved. (Paras 35, 37, 40, 41)
Appeal allowed.
fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955] /kkjk 13 & fookg foPNsn ;kfpdk & ifr ds izfr Øwjrk dk vfHkdFku & izR;FkhZ iRuh dks ifr ds o`) ekrk&firk] Lo;a ifr] vkSj mlds HkkbZ ds lkFk nqO;ogkj djus dh vknr Fkh & iRuh }kjk ;g /kedh nsuk fd og viuh bgyhyk lekIr dj nsxh ;k vihykFkhZ dh gR;k dj nsxh & le;≤ ij ifr ls xkyh xykSt djuk vkSj ;g /kedh nsuk fd og mldh ukSdjh xaok nsxh] mlds >xM+kyq gksus vkSj mldk O;ogkj vokaNuh; gksus ckcr fu"i{k O;fDr;ksa }kjk Lora= f'kdk;rsa & Øwjrk dk ekeyk curk gS & nksuksa fiNys 27 o"kksZ ls vyx vyx jg jgs gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & bls fookg dk vlk/; fo?kVu ;k foQy fookg gksuk dgk tkrk gS & fookg fo?kfVr fd;kA ¼in la[;k 35] 37] 40] 41½
vihy Lohdkj dhA
2. This case has a chequered history of litigation.
3. The husband, Nathulal filed a divorce petition u/sec. 13 of the Act 1955, which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No.183/1991, and the same came to be dismissed by the Family Court. Appeal against the said judgment and order on an earlier occasion came to be decided by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.3.1997, by which Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Family Court and granted a decree for divorce in favour of the appellant-husband. The respondent wife, Nathi Bai carried the matter to the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3422/1997 that came to be allowed vide order dated 8.10.2002 and order of the Division Bench in the present appeal, No.244/1993 dated 1.3.1997 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Division Bench of this Court for fresh hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
4. The appellant moved an application u/O.41 R.27 CPC for taking subsequent events on record. Taking note of the various contentions and in the light of directions of the Apex Court vide order dated 8.10.2002, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 9.10.2006, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant filed a review petition which too came to be dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 20.12.2006 and the application filed u/O. 41 R.27 CPC remained unattended. The appellant filed Civil Appeal No.(S) 366-367/2009 before the Apex Court against the judgment of this Court dated 9.10.2006 and dismissal of the review application dated 20.12.2006. The Apex Court allowed the appeal of appellant and again remitted the matter back to this Court with a direction to take into consideration application u/O.41 R.27 CPC and decide afresh. The operative portion of the order of Apex Court is quoted thus :-
“Keeping all the circumstances in view, since avowedly the High Court has not decided the appellant's application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, the course which commends itself to us is to remand the matter in its entirety to the High Court with a direction to first decide the Appellant's application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The Impugned Order is accordingly set aside. The matters are remanded back to the High Court for consideration afresh.
Appeals stand disposed of. No order as to costs.”
After the matter was remitted back to this Court, application u/O.41 R.27 was allowed and the judgments annexed thereto were taken on record vide order dated 9.7.2015.
5. Having noticed the above facts, the salient features for disposal of present appeal are noticed hereunder.
6. Admittedly the appellant-husband got married with the respondent-wife on 27.4.1979 as per the Hindu rites and custom. It has been alleged that in the month of February 1983 respondent wife left the house of appellant husband without any reason and did not turn back. The appellant filed a divorce petition u/sec. 13 in the year 1986 which the appellant withdrew as both the parties entered into a compromise. It is further alleged that in the month of August 1986, respondent came back to the house of the appellant and for some time the behaviour of the respondent was normal, but she started giving threatening and started quarreling with the appellant. It is further alleged that torture of the respondent had gone to such an extent that the respondent lodged a false case against him u/sec. 498-A and 406 IPC in the police station Vigyan Nagar, Kota, on 28.8.1986 against her in-laws in which allegations were levelled regarding demand of dowry against the father and brothers of the appellant and the police after investigation submitted final report, the Investigating
