Subhash Samvatsar and Smt. Indrani Datta, JJ.
Vandhana Gupta (Smt.) v. Ramesh Gupta
First Appeal No.7 of 2006 (G); Decided on 11.7.2008. *
It is also proved that appellant used to call him impotent in the form of abuse. Evidence on this point is unrebutted in cross examination and is supported by the statement of his parents. This is also proved that her behaviour was not proper and she used to threaten the respondent to involve in criminal case and was not doing any household work. All these acts amount to cruelty. (2000) 1 MPLJ 575, 2008 (I) MPWN 32 and AIR 1986 Raj. 13 relied on. (2002) 5 SCC 706 and 2005 AIR SCW 163 followed.[Paras 17 & 18
fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 && /kkjk 13 ¼1½ (i-a) and (i-b) && ngst dh ekax ds feF;k vfHkdyu && ifr dks uiqald dguk && ekrk firk ls dnkpkj && ifr dks vkijkf/kd ekeys esa varoZfyr djus dh /kedh nsuk && dzwjrk dh dksfV esa vkrk gS && fMdzh Bhd gh ikfjr dh xbZA ;g Hkh lkfcr fd;k x;k gS fd vihykFkhZ mls xkyh ds :Ik esa uiqald dgk djrh FkhA bl fo"k; ij lk{; izfrijh{kk esa v[kafMRk gS vkSj mlds ekrk firk ds dFku ls lefFkZr gSA ;g Hkh lkfcr gS fd mldk O;ogkj mfpr ugha Fkk vkSj og izR;FkhZ dks vkijkf/kd ekeys esa varoZfyr djus dh /kedh fn;k djrh FkhA rFkk x`gLFkh dk dk;Z ugh djrh FkhA ;s leLr dk;Z dzwjrk dh dksfV esa vkrs gSA ¼2000½ 1 ,e ih ,y ts 575] 2008 ¼1½ e- iz- ohDyh uksV~l 32 rFkk , vkb vkj 1986 jkt- 13 voyafcr A ¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 706 rFkk 2005 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 163 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 18
Datta, J. -- 1. Appellant-wife has filed this First Appeal under section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2005 passed by the Family Court, Gwalior in H.M.A. No. 39A/03 by which respondent's petition for divorce was allowed and petition filed by the appellant-wife for restitution of conjugal rights, which was registered as H.M.A. No. 373A/03, has been dismissed.
2. Admitted facts of the case are that marriage between the appellant and respondent has been solemnized by Hindu traditions on 4.11.1998 in Gwalior.
3. Brief facts of the case are that in Case No. 39A/03 filed by the respondent/husband it is stated that after the marriage appellant's behaviour was not cooperative with the family members of the respondent.
She misbehaved with respondent and his mother. She was not cooperative in household works. Appellant went to her parental house from time to time without consent of the respondent and on 18.4.1999 she went to her parental house and returned on 6.5.1999 and again on 13.5.1999 she went to her parental house and returned on 14.5.1999. The appellant insisted the respondent for publication of her poetries and when he refused then she brought the knife from the kitchen and made effort to commit suicide. The respondent intimated about this incident to the parents of the appellant and thereafter on the same day she returned back to her parental house with her uncle Mr. Vinod Gupta. It is also alleged that the appellant used to give threatening of registration of false dowry case and after the incident of 14.5.1999 on the assurance of good behaviour by the appellant's parents, the appellant returned back to respondent's house on 21.6.1999. After that her behaviour was not changed and she continued to misbehave with the family members of the respondent and also started making allegations that the respondent is impotent and, therefore, respondent felt insulted and also suffered mental agony. She used to threaten respondent and his family members to involve them in criminal cases and in this way the appellant behaved cruelly with the respondent.
Appellant is residing separately since 1.2.2001 at her parental house without any sufficient cause or reason and inspite of several requests and efforts being made to bring her back, she refused to come back to her matrimonial house, therefore on the ground of cruelty and desertion divorce was sought.
4. Appellant filed written statement and denied the allegations of the application. She submitted that the behaviour of the family members of the respondent was not good with her and they used to torture and demand dowry and the incident dated 14.5.1999 is false and infact on 14.5.1999 when she returned back from Dholpur after giving the examination of B.A. the respondent assaulted her and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/and a motorcycle and thrown her out of the house in the wearing clothes, therefore, she went to her relative's house in Gwalior. Thereafter on6.6.1999 her father alongwith some relatives namely Anil Bansal, Vinod Gupta and Vishnu Bansal went to the house of the respondent, where the father of the respondent again demanded Rs. 50,000/- and motorcycle and her father agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in two installments and on 21.9.1999 her father paid Rs. 10,000/- and after that on 22.9.1999 she returned back to the respondent's house and on 12.11.2000 her father paid Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent and his father. Thereafter in January
2001 the respondent and his father and mother demanded the motorcycle and also started misbehaving with her and also restricted her to talk to anyone and by the consent of the respondent on 31.1.2001 she came back to her parent's house and thereafter her father and herself approached so many time to the respondent and his father but they never turned up to take her back and also started demanding four-wheeler. She prayed for dismissal of the application filed by respondent-hu
2. Surbhi Agrawal v. Sanjay Agrawal = [2000 (I) MPLJ 575]
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.