Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 3026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, JJ.
Laxmi Gehlot - Appellant
Versus
Badri Narayan Gehlot - Respondent
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 5853 of 2011
Decided On : 21-10-2019
For the Appellant :Hans Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Vinod Kumar Rajoria, Advocate.
Point of law:
Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(ia) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner.
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Divorce Petition - Hindu Marriage – Desertion – Cruelty and harassment - Whether the non-applicant wife has without any reasonable cause deserted the applicant husband continuously more than two years? Whether the non-applicant wife has without any reasonable cause deserted the applicant husband continuously more than two years? Section 13(1)(i-a) uses the words "treated the petitioner with cruelty". The word "cruelty" has not been defined. Indeed it could not have been denied. It has been used in relation to human conduct or human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations.
Facts of the case:
This appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized at Jodhpur according to the Hindu rites and customs. The spouses are blessed with two daughters, one of them died -The respondent husband was working in Kendriya Vidyalaya Jodhpur. When the respondent husband came his village at Dhrangdhra, the appellant wife would like to remain at her parents house and when the respondent husband came at Jodhpur, the appellant wife used to come her in-laws house. Thus the behavior of appellant wife became cruel towards respondent husband and his family members. The appellant wife did not take interest in the household work and used filthy language. On this account, the respondent husband and his family members felt insult before their relatives and neighbours.
Finding of the court:
It is evident from the record that behavior of the appellant towards respondent and his family members was cruel and disrespectful. The appellant wife used to threat them. Appellant's father also threatened to the respondent without any reasonable cause. The appellant wife had not informed about birth of daughter Santosh to the respondent husband and even of her death. Even after information, the appellant had not come to her matrimonial home at the time of death of her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. The appellant wife had deserted the respondent husband for last 28 years without any reasonable cause. She had not made any effort to restore the matrimonial relationships. The conduct and behavior of the appellant wife comes in the category of cruelty. The learned Family Court had not committed any error to decide the issue of cruelty and desertion against the appellant.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal has been preferred by appellant Laxmi Gehlot against the order of the learned Family Court, Ajmer passed on 14.12.2010 in Divorce Petition No. 82/2004 filed by Shri Badri Narayan (husband) u/s. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") against Smt. Laxmi Gehlot (wife) whereby the learned Family Court annulled the marriage with effect from the date of the order i.e. 14.12.2010.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23.6.1978 at Jodhpur according to the Hindu rites and customs. The spouses are blessed with two daughters, one of them died on 8.10.1985.
The respondent husband was working in Kendriya Vidyalaya Jodhpur. When the respondent husband came his village at Dhrangdhra, the appellant wife would like to remain at her parents house and when the respondent husband came at Jodhpur, the appellant wife used to come her in-laws house. Thus the behavior of appellant wife became cruel towards respondent husband and his family members. The appellant wife did not take interest in the household work and used filthy language. On this account, the respondent husband and his family members felt insult before their relatives and neighbours. The appellant wife used to go her parental house at Jodhpur without any information. In the year 1979, when respondent husband decided to remain at his parental house at village Chokha, District Jodhpur but the appellant wife clearly refused to remain in village. Father of the appellant wife went to Jodhpur for pressurizing to live Ghar Janwai and this was impossible for respondent husband. On 10.6.1980, father of appellant wife went to respondent's house along with a team of punk of Nagauri Bera and threatened to respondent to remain at Jodhpur. Father of respondent expired on 24.7.1980. Appellant wife went to Jodhpur on 8.8.80 taking her all 'Stridhan'. The respondent husband complained to the relatives of appellant wife. The appellant wife deserted the respondent husband since 16.8.1980.
3. In reply, the appellant wife denied all the facts except marriage and two daughter. She stated that her second daughter expired due to his misbehave. She stated that she used to live at in-laws house at Jodhpur. She stated that she or her parents never told to remain him at Ghar Janwai. So, the petition be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the pleadings and arguments advanced by both the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Family Court:-
"1. Whether the respondent wife treated petitioner husband with cruelty as mentioned in the in the petition?
2. Whether the non-applicant wife has without any reasonable cause deserted the applicant husband continuously more than two years?
3. Whether the applicant is entitled to get decree of divorce against the non-applicant?
4. Relief."
5. The respondent husband examined himself as AW-1 and one witness - Moti Lal AW-2.
6. The appellant wife examined herself as NAW 1 and one witness - Neelam Kachhawa NAW-2.
7. Learned Family Court after hearing the arguments of both the sides, all the issues were decided in favour of the respondent husband and against the appellant wife and annulled the marriage solemnized between them with effect from the order i.e. 14.12.2010.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dated 14.12.2010 is illegal, arbitrary and against the material available on record. He submitted that the respondent husband filed petition u/s. 13 of the Act after a period of alleged desertion by wife of 28 years which itself belies the entire fabricated tale of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent did not made any effort to restore the troubled matrimonial ties viz. he did not file any application u/s. 9 for restitution of conjugal rights which makes crystal clear that the respondent never fulfilled his duty of a good husband.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent husban
