Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 323
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A.K. Shrivastava and B.D. Rathi, JJ.
Sanjay Agrawal v. Smt. Jyoti Agrawal
First Appeal No.39 of 2009 (Gwalior) : against the judgment and decree of District Judge, Guna, passed in
Case No.2 of 2008; Decided on 25.6.2013.
V.K. Bharadwaj with Vinod Jain for appellant;
Rishikesh Bohare for respondent.
Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- Ss.13 and 23(1)(b) -- cruelty by husband proved -- condonation of the same by wife not established -- decree of divorce justified -- appeal dismissed.
Held : That apart, it is proved on the basis of evidence that as soon as the respondent came to know about the factum of receiving Rs.12,00,000/- of insurance by respondent on account of the death of her late first husband, he came to Guna with intention to grab that money and under the false pretext and by misrepresentation that he will keep his wife-respondent with him without harassing her and would not beat her and also gave an understanding that he will maintain sweet and cordial relations with her, brought her to Indore, but his real intention was to grab anyhow the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- from her (respondent-wife). Thus, in such facts and circumstances when on account of misrepresentation the respondent was brought, it cannot be said that the doctrine of condonation would come into play and the appellant cannot take any advantage of said doctrine. In these facts and circumstances, the doctrine of condonation has not been proved by the appellant.
For the reasons stated herein-above we don’t find any merit in this appeal. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
fganw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 & /kkjk 13 rFkk 23¼1½¼[k½ & ifr )kjk dzwjrk lkfcr & iRuh )kjk bls ekQ fd;k tkuk LFkkfir ugha & fookg&foPNsn dh fMdzh U;k;laxr & vihy [kkfjtA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % blds vfrfjDr] lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd izR;FkhZ us tSls gh izR;FkhZ ds izFke fnoaxr ifr dh e`R;q ds dkj.k izR;FkhZ )kjk chek ds :- 12]00]000@& izkIr djus ds rF; ds ckjs esa tkuk] og /ku gfFk;kus ds vk’k; ls xquk vk; rFkk feF;k cgkus ds v/khu rFkk bl nqO;Zins’ku )kjk fd og viuh iRuh&izRFkhZ dks vius lkFk mls izrkfM+r fd, fcuk j[ksxk rFkk ;g le>kSrk Hkh fd;k fd og mlds lkFk e/kqj rFkk Lusgiw.kZ laca/k cuk, j[ksxk] mls bankSj yk;k] ijarq mldk vk’k; fdlh Hkh rjg mlls ¼izR;FkhZ&iRuh ls½ :- 12]00]000@& dh jde gfFk;kuk FkkA bl izdkj] bu rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, tc nqO;Zins’ku ds dkj.k izR;FkhZ dks yk;k x;k] ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ekQh dk fl)kar Hkwfedk esa vk,xk rFkk vihykFkhZ mDr fl)kar dk dksbZ ykHk ugha ys ldrkA bu rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq,] ekQh dk fl)kar vihykFkhZ )kjk lkfcr ugha fd;k x;k gSA
;gk¡ Åij dfFkr dkj.kksa ls] ge bl vihy esa dksbZ xq.kkxq.k ugha ikrs gSA ;g ,rn~)kjk [kpsZ ds fo”k;d fcuk fdlh vkns’k ds [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA
¼iSjk 13 ,oa 14½
Shrivastava, J. -- 1. By this appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “the Act of 1955”) the husband-appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Guna in Case No.2/2008 Hindu Marriage Act, whereby the learned District Judge, Guna has passed the decree of divorce.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that the wife-respondent filed an application under section 13 of the Act of 1955 praying to pass a decree of divorce. In the application of divorce it has been pleaded by the wife that she is a widow and earlier she was married to one Vinay Agrawal, who later on died and out of the wedlock with her first husband, she is having a daughter Khushboo having age of 8 years. Thereafter, her second marriage was solemnized with the appellant on 7.6.2006. After marriage, for 10-12 days behaviour of the appellant-husband as well as his mother was cordial towards her,but later on the appellant (husband) after consuming liquor started harassing her and was making demand of dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three lacs only) cash and one Alto Car. The behaviour of the appellant towards her daughter Khushboo (born from her first husband) was not cordial and despite her daughter being a child she was asked to discharge the domestic works and food was not being provided to her timely. Further, it has been pleaded that the appellant used to beat her (wife) after bolting the room from inside. In August, 2006 i.e. only after two months of her marriage with the appellant the respondent came back to her parents’ house where she lived with her parents upto 15th August, 2007. During this period the respondent-wife received a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rs. Twelve lacs only) of insurance of her late first husband. When this fact came in the knowledge of the appellant, immediately he came to her parents’ house where she was residing and carried her with him to her nuptial house at Indore. It is the further case of respondent that at Indore appellant started making demand of Rs.12,00,000/- which was received by the respondent towards insurance on account of the death of her late first husband and also gave threat that in case she would not give the said amount, he will not keep her with him. On 22nd August, 2007 a document of divorce was also executed before a Notary and thereafter the respondent came back to her parents’ house at Guna. Thereafter, again the appellant arrived at Guna and gave threat to the respondent that he will forcibly take her to Indore, hence, she had filed an application for divorce by praying that a decree of divorce may be passed in her favour.
3. The averments made in the application of divorce by the respondent were denied by the husband-appellant. The factum of making demand of cash Rs.3,00,000/- and one Alto car has also been denied. Further, it has been denied that the behaviour of appellant towards Khushboo (the daughter of respondent from his first husband) was inhuman. The factum of making demand of Rs.12,00,000/- of insurance, which the respondent obtained, has also been denied. According to the appellant, because the respondent gave threat of committing suicide, therefore, he executed the document of divorce and put his signature upon that document. According to him, he never gave any consent of divorce. It has also been pleaded by the apellant-husband that his financial condition is very sound and he never made demand of any money from the respondent. It is his further case that he is ready to deposit any amount in the bank in the name of respondent. On the basis of these averments, it has been prayed that the application of divorce may be dismissed.
4. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, passed a decree of divorce. In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the husband-appellant before this Court.
5. The contention of learned senior counsel for appellant, Shri Bharadwaj, is that the fac
