Back
Rajasthan High Court
Honble N.N. MATHUR & D.N. JOSHI, JJ.
Yudhishter Singh - Appellant
Versus
Smt.Sarita - Respondents
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.880 & 858 of 1999
Decided On : April 22, 2002
The finding of the Judge, Family Court is based on critical examination of the evidence and his conclusion that the husband has failed to establish the charge of cruelty by a reliable and cogent evidence in accordance with the established principle of law. Thus, we unhasitantly hold that the husband appellant has failed to establish the cruelty, taking the individual instances or taking them collectively. None of the instances has been established by the appellant more so they are not of conclusive nature leading to the inference that there was cruelty on the part of the wife. (Para 17)
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The marriage between Yudhishter Singh and Sarita was solemnized on December 9, 1990. Sarita filed for restitution of conjugal rights after about one year of marriage, alleging that her husband was depriving her of her company and keeping her at her parental house instead of the matrimonial home (!) .
The allegations made by Sarita included demands for dowry (Scooter and cash), mental torture, harassment, and rejection of her requests to stay at her husband's place of posting. The husband denied these allegations, and evidence was examined by the court (!) (!) .
The court found that the husband failed to establish the charge of cruelty against Sarita with reliable and cogent evidence. The evidence did not support the allegations of cruelty, false accusations, or misconduct by Sarita (!) .
The court observed that the instances of alleged cruelty, when examined collectively, did not amount to cruelty as per legal standards. Many allegations lacked independent corroboration or were based on vague or evasive testimony (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that trivial disputes and disagreements, such as quarrels or differences in preferences, do not constitute cruelty or grounds for divorce. The marriage was recognized as a sacred and resilient relationship that should not be dissolved over minor issues (!) (!) .
The court held that the husband failed to prove his allegations of cruelty and that his conduct, including not keeping his wife at the matrimonial home, was wrongful. As a result, the decree for divorce was rejected, but a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was granted in favor of Sarita (!) (!) .
The court also noted that the husband's conduct, which included not making efforts to keep his wife at the matrimonial home and allegedly attempting to disrepute her, fell into misconduct. This misconduct invoked Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which considers the conduct of the parties in divorce proceedings (!) .
The appeals filed by the husband challenging the orders of the family court were dismissed, affirming the decision that the husband had not established grounds for divorce, and that the decree for restitution of conjugal rights was appropriate (!) (!) .
In summary, the court upheld the decision that there was no sufficient evidence of cruelty by the wife, recognized her right to restitution of conjugal rights, and dismissed the husband's appeals.
(2). The undisputed facts are that the marriage between the appellant Yudhishter Singh and Sarita was solemnised on 9.12.90 at Jodhpur. After one year of the marriage, i.e. on 13.4.92, Sarita had to file an application for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court at Jodhpur. She averred that her husband, who was posted as Junior Engineer at Village Gotan was depriving her the company. She was kept at the ancestral house at Mandore instead at Gotan. He used to visit on week end. Whenever she made a request to take her to Gotan, it was rejected on the ground that her father did not meet the demand of Scooter and Rs.11,000/- in cash. Family members used to taunt her for not bringing sufficient dowry causing great mental torture. Her father was also harassed and mentally tortured by the father-in- law and brother-in-law namely Pokar Singh and Naresh Chandra for not meeting the demand of Scooter and Rs.11,000/- in cash. The efforts made by the relatives to drop the demand of Scooter and payment of cash did not succeed. She was asked to leave the house. The husband did not make any effort to bring her from her parents house. On the contrary, with a view to contract a second marriage strategies were evolved including securing a decree for divorce. It is also alleged that whenever she visited her matrimonial home, she was not being accepted and sent back. The husband in his written statement denied the allegations. The wife in addition to herself also examined A.W.2 Sohan Lal Gahlot (father) and A.W.3 Bhanwar Lal Parihar. The husband in addition to herself examined his brother N.A.W.2 Naresh Chandra, N.A.W.3 Arun Gahlot, N.A.W.4 Ram Chandra Mali and N.A.W.5 Jabar Singh.
(3). The husband sought a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The instances of cruelty have been enumerated in the order of the learned Judge, Family Court, as follows:-
(1) The wife used to insist him to live separately in the locality known as Paota. She was not willing to stay with his parents. In order to mount pressure on him, on some pretext or the other, she used to stay at her parental house;
(2) His wife levelled a false allegation against him and his family members of attempt to administer slow poison to her;
(3) False allegations were made of demand of Scooter and payment of cash of Rs.11,000/- and thereby to disrepute his family in the society.
(4) Inspite of the information she did not attend the marriage in the family of his aunt on 23.11.91;
(5) On 5.4.91 she visited his place of working at Gotan, threatened & mentally tortured him with a view to obtain a decree of divorce;
(6) She visited his place of working on 11.3.92 & 16.3.92 in his absence and with a view to disrepute him levelled false allegation of dowry demand against him and his family members;
(7) In his absence (while he used to be at Gotan) she used to stay at her parents house instead of matrimonial home. She used to visit the matrimonial home only on the week end;
(8) Same allegation has been made with respect to incident dated 17.7.91;
(4). At the outset, it may be stated that the husband has not pressed the allegations referred to at item No.2 & 8.
(5). The learned Judge, Family Court held that the husband failed to make out the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage act, 1953. Accordingly, he dismissed the petition for divorce, however, in a petition for restitution of co
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
