SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Raj) 202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
G. R. MOOLCHANDANI, PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, JJ.
Smt. Gulnaz w/o Shri Jafarullah Khan - Appellant
Versus
Shri Jafarullah s/o Shri Ammenullah Khan - Respondent
D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2274 of 2013
Decided On : 23-01-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Hasan
For the Respondent: Mr. Sehban Naqvi

A wife cannot be compelled to join the matrimonial company of her husband if she has been subjected to cruelty and maltreatment by him.

Headnote:

RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS - SECTION 9 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 - SECTION 125 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - SECTION 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - SECTION 406 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 - The court held that a wife cannot be compelled to join the matrimonial company of her husband if she has been subjected to cruelty and maltreatment by him. The court also held that the husband is duty-bound to render security, amity, and dignity to his spouse, and a woman suspecting a threat to her body and dignity cannot be forced to join marital companionship.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant-wife filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband-respondent. The appellant alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and maltreatment by her husband and was ousted from the house. She also filed a case against her husband under Section 498A (cruelty) and Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and a case for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant had been subjected to cruelty and maltreatment by her husband and that she had not been given adequate sustenance amount. The court also found that the husband had admitted that cases pertaining to cruelty and demand of maintenance were sub-judice against him and that he was not capable of bearing the expenses of his wife and children.

Issues: Whether a wife can be compelled to join the matrimonial company of her husband if she has been subjected to cruelty and maltreatment by him.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a wife cannot be compelled to join the matrimonial company of her husband if she has been subjected to cruelty and maltreatment by him. The court also held that the husband is duty-bound to render security, amity, and dignity to his spouse, and a woman suspecting a threat to her body and dignity cannot be forced to join marital companionship.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court.

JUDGMENT :

G.R. Moolchandani, J.

Appellant Smt. Gulnaz has assailed findings of court below passed by Family Court, Tonk on 21.6.2013 in Civil Suit No. 9/2013 (75/2009), whereby Family Court, Tonk has decreed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent.

2. Heard rival submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that appellant was maltreated and beaten by her respondent husband and was ousted from the house and compelled to seek shelter in her parental house alongwith two small children, appellant has launched action against her respondent husband and a case u/s 498A coupled with sec. 406 of IPC is pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. Respondent has got an unpleasant temperament, he has given several beatings and abuses to the appellant severally, so the appellant cannot be compelled to join the matrimonial company of her husband, the court below, ignoring the evidence, has passed the judgment impugned, which is not sustainable in the eye of law, so it be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent Jafarullah has argued that behavior of the appellant is not amicable, she has falsely lodged alleged FIR against the respondent and a delay of six months is there in lodging the alleged FIR, which discloses that appellant has put in motion unlawful proceedings falsely, respondent is prepared to keep and maintain her alongwith his children, there is no infirmity in the findings of the court below, so the appeal be dismissed.

4. Heard both the sides and perused the record and examined the judgment impugned.

5. Perusal of record shows that appellant/non-petitioner has refuted the allegations of desertion and has categorically pleaded that her husband Jafarullah had given beatings to appellant Gulnaz severally and demanded dowry and also passed sarcastic taunts by alleging to bring less dowry and demanded money alongwith motorcycle, tv, fridge, washing machine and abandoned the appellant to her parental house at tonk and did not render necessary maintenance money and amenities to the appellant and her children, it has also pleaded that while on 19.11.2007, the appellant was given thrashing, she lodged a report with Mahila thana, Gandhinagar, Jaipur, her medical examination was also conducted and on 20.11.2007 on intervention of family members, a compromise was made, while the respondent executed a compromise and assured that he will not repeat atrocity and will also not demand dowry but after one month to the compromise, respondent again gave severe beatings to the appellant and left her alongwith her minor children at the house of her parents at tonk in June 2008, respondent ousted the appellant after giving beatings and on 19.1.2009 appellant lodged a case against respondent for offences punishable u/s 498A and 406 of IPC and said case being Case No.159/2005 is sub-judice before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk.

6. Evaluation of evidence reveals that in evidence respondent Jafarullah has admitted that Gulnaz had filed a case in January 2009 against the respondent with allegations of cruelty

and demand of dowry.

7. Cross-examination of this witness is important since he has admitted that a compromise had taken place on 20.11.2007 with her wife at Mahila thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and has admitted that prior to this case, his wife had filed of a case u/s 498A, 406 of IPC against the respondent and a case for maintenance was also filed by the appellant, he has further stated that he did not bear, expenses of his kids’ school fee, books and dress borne at tonk, he has also admitted that he is unable to bear expenses of his wife and his children and those were being borne by his parents and brother.

8. DW1 Gulnaz has corroborated pleadings, written in her reply, she has also stated that on 19.11.2007 she had lodged a report against her husband at Mahila thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, which were later compromised and her husband ousted her from the house in the month o









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top