MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)
S.K. Kulshrestha, J; J.K. Maheshwari, J
ANURADHA PRAFULL VAIDH – Appellant
Versus
PRAFULL VAIDH – Respondent
First Appeal No. 490 of 2005
Decided on : 27-06-2007
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
This appeal has been filed u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 assailing the judgment and decree dated 5-8-2005 passed by the Family Court, Indore in HMA Case No. 419/93, by which the application filed by the respondent u/s 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed.
It is not in dispute that the appellant and respondent were married on 21-11-1986 at Indore as per Hindu Rites and after marriage one daughter Kumari Vandana was born from their wedlock, at present she is residing along with appellant. It is also not in dispute that on 31-7-2000 appellant had submitted a criminal complaint against the respondent and his mother and father in Mahila Police Station, Indore under sections 498A and 406 of Indian Penal Code. In that case the respondent was taken into custody and the father and mother were released on anticipatory bail. On filing challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class Indore, they were convicted vide judgment dated 18-2-2003 and directed to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each. Against the said judgment a criminal appeal was preferred bearing No. 103/2003, which was allowed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore on 7-11-2003 and the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore was set-aside.
Thereafter the respondent filed a petition u/s 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking decree of divorce, wherein it was stated that behaviour of the appellant was not cordial with him as well as his family members. The appellant was coerced to leave the house of respondent for residing in the house of her father and mother. It is also said that the appellant was ready and willing to come to the respondent, on being requested by him to return back to their home. In the third week of June, 2000 the appellant insisted upon respondent to reside separately from his parent. On this issue there were some quarrel between them and appellant left the house and proceeded to her parent house. On 25-7-2000 the respondent and his mother went to call back the appellant at their home, while her uncle, misbehaved and uttered that appellant will not go with him, it is further said that he was threatened with dire consequences in future. In sequence thereto, she had made the complaint on 31-7-2000 alleging demand of dowry and with various other allegations, wherein the respondent was taken into custody for more than 24 hours and he was released after returning all the goods i.e. Bed, T.V., Dressing Table, tea Table, Table Fan, Bed, Cloths, Ornaments, Cash etc. On filing challan they were tried in Case No. 772/2001 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore and convicted for a term of three years rigorous imprisonment and with fine of Rs. 500/- each u/s 498A, vide judgment dated 10-2-2003. The said judgment was assailed before VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, wherein the respondent and his parents were acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 7-11-2003. After acquittal, a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion was filed by him u/s 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
In reply to divorce petition, the appellant denied all the averments of cruelty and desertion as alleged in the petition except the date of marriage, birth of daughter and filing of criminal proceedings u/s 498A. It was also denied that the appellant had insisted upon respondent to reside separately from his family members. In counter, the appellant has made the allegation of cruelty and desertion committed by the respondent. It is said that the appellant is residing with her daughter to whom Rs. 900/- has been awarded as maintenance, which is not yet paid by the respondent. It is also said that on 15-6-2000 respondent and his mother had assaulted her and thereafter repeated the same on 30-6-2000 and as about 11 P.M. in the night, she was pushed out from their house. However, prayer is made to di
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.