Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. K. Roy andr. K. Mahajan, JJ.
PREM CHANDRA PANDEY - Appellant
Versus
SAVITRI PANDEY - Respondents
First Appeal 337 Of 1996
Decided On : 04/17/1998
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - SECTION 13 - DESERTION - DIVORCE - MAINTENANCE - STRIDHAN - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 27 - RETURN OF PROPERTY - SPOUSAL OBLIGATIONS - REASONABLE ADJUSTMENT - CRUELTY - NON-CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE - ADULTERY - ALIMONY - COURT'S DISCRETION - JOINT PROPERTY - OWNERSHIP - EVIDENCE - PLEADINGS AND PROOF - VARIANCE - SECTION 5, 12, 23, 27 - ORDER VI, RULE 2, C. P. C. - SPOUSAL OBLIGATIONS - REASONABLE ADJUSTMENT - CRUELTY - NON-CONSUMMATION OF MARRIAGE - ADULTERY - ALIMONY - COURT'S DISCRETION - JOINT PROPERTY - OWNERSHIP - EVIDENCE - PLEADINGS AND PROOF - VARIANCE - SECTION 5, 12, 23, 27 - ORDER VI, RULE 2, C. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
Wife filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging desertion and cruelty by the husband. The husband contested the petition, denying the allegations and claiming that the wife had left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. The Family Court granted a decree of divorce and awarded the wife maintenance of Rs. 500 per month and the price of a scooter. The husband appealed against the decree, and the wife filed a cross-appeal challenging the refusal of the Family Court to grant her a decree for the return of other properties claimed by her.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Family Court erred in granting a decree of divorce as there was no evidence of cruelty or desertion by the husband. The Court found that the wife had made false allegations of adultery against the husband, which amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court also held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance as she was earning a salary and the husband's income was low. The Court set aside the decree of divorce and dismissed the wife's cross-appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the husband's conduct amounted to cruelty or desertion under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act? 2. Whether the wife was entitled to maintenance? 3. Whether the wife was entitled to the return of the properties claimed by her under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the wife's allegations of cruelty and desertion were not supported by evidence. The Court found that the wife had made false allegations of adultery against the husband, which amounted to cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Court also found that the wife had left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and had refused the husband's offer to take her back. 2. The Court held that the wife was not entitled to maintenance as she was earning a salary and the husband's income was low. The Court noted that the husband was paying maintenance to the wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The Court held that the wife was not entitled to the return of the properties claimed by her under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act as there was no evidence of ownership of the properties.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the husband's appeal and set aside the decree of divorce. The Court dismissed the wife's cross-appeal.
( 1 ) THIS common judgment disposes of these appeals.
( 2 ) IN First Appeal No. 358 of 1996, the husband has questioned the validity of the order dated 8. 7. 1996 passed by Sri Surendra Pratap Mishra, Family Judge, Allahabad in Matrimonial petition No. 361 of 1991 allowing the petition of the wife filed under Section 13 of the Hindu marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of desertion by the husband and granting a decree of Rs. 12,000 towards price of the scooter and Rs. 500 as alimony per month. The wife, being not satisfied with that part of the order refusing to grant a decree in her favour in respect of other properties claimed by her, has filed First Appeal No. 337 of 1996 for setting aside the order to that extent.
( 3 ) MATRIMONIAL Petition No, 6 of 1991 was filed by the wife under Section 13 of the Act alleging, inter alia, that her marriage was settled by negotiations of the parents of both sides during which several demands of dowry were made by her husband and his other family members ; that as her parents wanted to discharge their liabilities of her marriage at the earliest, they any how agreed to fulfil the demands made and spent more than Rs. 80,000 in the marriage and also gave several articles, ornaments and valuables (cash and kind) and her marriage was solemnized according to hindu Vedic rites on 6. 5. 1987 at Allahabad ; that Vidai took place on 7. 5,1987 and she went to reside at the residence of her husband where she lived upto 21. 6. 1987 : that she found her husband and his other family members greedy who made a further demand of colour T. V. , refrigerator and some other ornaments besides a cash of Rs. 10. 000 : that her father anyhow managed and gave Rs. 10,000 in the first week of June. 1987 but could not fulfil other demands ; when her parents could not fulfil the said further demand, her husband and his other family members started torturing her on one pretext or the other, treated her with physical and mental cruelty including mercilessly beating ; that her husband and his other family members did not agree for her Vidai from their residence but on the repeated requests of her father they anyhow agreed and on 21. 6. 1987 she returned to her Maika along with her father only with a suitcase containing few clothes of daily use ; that her husband has kept all the articles, ornaments and valuables (cash and kind described in Schedules A, B and C) which were given at or about the time of marriage as Its consideration ; that repeated attempts for her Vidai from Maika were made by her parents but her husband and his other members of the family did not agree to keep her as Bahu of their family until and unless further demands are fulfilled ; that she later gathered that her husband has got illicit relations with a lady residing in -the District Gaya of the State of bihar and that he had married her only for satisfaction of the members of his family and to extract heavy amount and other valuables from her parents ; that despite repeated requests her husband did not agree for her maintenance although he is working as a clerk in Civil Court. Allahabad ; that the treatment of the husband has caused a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be not fit and proper for her to live with her husband, who has also deserted her for a continuous period of more than two years ; thus she is entitled to get her marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion and a decree for the return of the articles described in Schedules A, B and C.
( 4 ) THE defence of the husband in his written statement was to this effect : The marriage was fixed by her father and his elder brother who was friend of her father and at that time, he was doing advocacy but now P. C. S. (J.) Munsif-Magistrate without any dowry ; that there was no exchange of any kind nor had her father given any article or rupee to him or the members of his family either before the marri
AI
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
