Honble SHARMA, J.–The relationship between the spouses is a matter concerning human life which does not run on dotted lines or charted course laid down by the statutes. The appellant wife in the instant matter, however challenged the decree dated October 19, 2001 of the learned Family Court Kota mainly on the ground that the strict rules of pleadings have not been followed in drafting the petition of divorce by the respondent husband.

(2). Contextual facts depict that the respondent husband in the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act averred that his marriage with the appellant took place some 16 years back. After the marriage the respondent husband and his mother started residing in the house of appellant wife and start cultivating the agricultural land of appellants father. Since the respondent was poor, the appellant wife used to tease and torture him. The appellant wife was a lady of easy virtue therefore she got herself subjected to vasectomy operation. The appellant wife was arrested in a criminal case under sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC and thus caused mental cruelty to the respondent husband. She deserted him for the last ten years. Thus he was entitled to decree of divorce.

(3). The appellant wife filed reply to the petition denying the allegations. She stated that on pursuation of the respondent she got herself operated. She further pleaded that after performing second marriage the respondent husband ousted her from his house, thus she had no other option except to live with her parents. According to appellant, the respondent did not enjoy good reputation and he had illicit relations with Sajna and Parvati.

(4). On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-

(i) Whether the respondent committed cruelty towards the petitioner?

(ii) Whether the respondent was involved in criminal case for the offences under sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC?

(iii) Whether the petitioner filed the divorce petition on the basis of wrong facts?

(iv) Relief?

(5). The respondent examined himself as Aw.1 and Santosh Bai as Aw.2 whereas the appellant appeared as Naw.1 and Ramji Lal as Naw.2. Learned Family Court on hearing final submissions decided the petition as indicated above.

(6). The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Family Court erred in not considering the fact that there was no specific pleading in the petition that the appellant was leading adulterous life and in absence of pleading, evidence in relation to adultery was not admissible. Reliance is placed on Ram Sarup Gupta Vs. Bishun Narain College (AIR 1987 SC 1242) and Smt.Meera Vs. Vijay Shankar Talchidia, 1993(1) RLR 485.

(7). In Ram Sarup Gupta vs. Bishun Narain Inter College (supra) it was indicated as under:-

"It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. The pleadings however should receive a liberal construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities. Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may not expressly make out a case in accordance with strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the duty of the court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings to determine the question. It is not desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the substance of the pleadings should be considered. Whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised the enquiry should not be so much about the form of pleadings, instead the Court mus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document