Honble B.PRASAD, J. – The husband-appellant is aggrieved by the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Udaipur from the respondent-wife Smt. Mamta. The respondent-wife Smt. Mamta filed divorce petition on the grounds that ever since they were married the appellant-husband started pressurising her to get more offerings from her parents. He started beating

her and he went even to the extent of turning her out of the house. In this process, the husband came into contact with another lady Saroj, who was an employee in the Medical Department and started living with her. Not only did he start living with the said Saroj, out of their relationship a daughter was also born. According to the allegations of wife- respondent, a son was born from the wedlock and this child

was taken away by the husband and he kept the child with Smt. Saroj at her place of service. The defendant-husband contested the petition. He denied that he has ever ill-treated the wife. She has on her own volition started living with her father. Defendant-husband also denied the fact that he has any relationship with Smt. Saroj who is a `sukhwal brahmin and is happily married to one Krishna Datt Sukhwal

and lives with him. Therefore, there is no question of his living with that lady.

(2). On the basis of pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed-one related to cruelty, other related to second marriage of husband-defendant and the third was for relief. On all counts, the trial Court had come to conclusion that the respondent-wife that a case of petitioner before the trial Court, has succeeded in

proving her case and believing case of the wife that a case of cruelty was held proved and it was also held proved that the defendant-husband has contacted a second marriage. In this view of the findings, the trial Court ordered dissolution of marriage.

(3). In this appeal, appellant assails the findings of the trial Court and says that

the trial Court has erroneously held cruelty proved against him. According to learned counsel for the appellant whatsoever has been alleged does not constitute a weighty and strong ground but a sheer wear and tear of the matrimonial life. By placing reliance on a judgment in Russel vs. Russel(1) learned counsel for the appellant stated that cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be

defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such a character, as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger.

(4). According to learned counsel, in the instant case, neither there was any apprehension of danger to the respondent-wife and therefore, the findings of crue- lty are erroneous. It has also been urged by learned counsel for the appellant that demands of dowry are only embroidery to allegations of cruelty. There had been no such attempt on the part of the appellant. As for the other issues, learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that Smt. Saroj is married to one Shri Krishna Datt Sukhwal and Krishna Datt Sukhwal and Saroj are living happily, therefore, the fin- dings are vitiated by conjectures and surmises. It is also the case of the appellant that an endeavour was required to be made by the trial Court to make a re-conciliation between the parties because in terms of Sec. 23(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act it has been laid down that before proceeding to grant any relief, every attempt should be made to bring about reconciliation and since no attempt was made by the Court below for re-conciliation, therefore, the decree is vitiated.

(5). Controverting the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant has contacted a second marriage. He has wrongly alleged that Smt. Saroj is living with Krishna Datt Sukhwal. In fact marriage between Smt. Saroj and Krishna Datt Sukhwal has been dissolved by a judgment of Family Court, Udaipur on 7.8.1995. If the marri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document