IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Cruelty by husband – Compelling wife to discontinue her studies or creating such an atmosphere that she is put in a position not to continue her studies is equivalent to destroy her dreams in beginning of their marital life and forcing her to live with a person who is neither educated nor eager to improve himself amounts to mental cruelty.

JUDGMENT

Gajendra Singh, J.—First Appeal No.377/2020 is preferred by the wife/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2020 in RCSHM No.62/2016 whereby the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been rejected and First Appeal No.388/2020 is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2020 in RCSHM No.61/2018 whereby the decree of restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been passed in favour of respondent/husband against the wife/appellant by Principal Judge, Family Court, Shajapur.

2. Facts in brief are that a marriage was solomnized on 01.05.2015 as per Hindu rituals including saptpadi in village Kohdiya Koshalpur, district Shajapur. At the time of marriage appellant/petitioner Bhuribai has cleared 12th standard and she expressed her desire to continue studies. The parents and family members of in-laws agreed and gauna ceremony was solemnized on 16.07.2016 and elder brother of husband and relative viz. Suresh took the petitioner to her matrimonial home only for a period of 2 days with an assurance that petitioner will return at her maternal home. After the function, petitioner requested to come back to maternal home. The members of her inlaws family intimated the petitioner that you cannot continue the study and you have to reside in the matrimonial home. It was also asked that very meager amount of dowry has been given at the time of marriage and pressure was created to fulfill the demand of Rs.1 lakh in cash and one motorcycle and to fulfill the demand petitioner was harassed. The father of petitioner informed police station Akodiya, district Shajapur and on the intervention of PS Akodiya, petitioner succeeded to return her maternal home on 28.07.2016. During her stay in matrimonial home for 2-3 days she was subjected to unnatural sexual intercourse, respondent/husband is in habit of drink and her life was put to danger. She was not taken to hospital. She is not willing to continue her marriage with the respondent/husband and filed a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty was filed on 21.11.2016.

3. The petition was contested by filing reply in which it was admitted that at the time of marriage petitioner was 12th class pass and she expressed her desire to continue the study and members of inlaws family were agreed and they cooperated the petitioner to continue the study and paid necessary expenses and petitioner is pursuing her B.Sc. course and respondent has assured that he will cooperate further study of petitioner/wife. He took the petitioner/wife for Devdarshan and picnic after gauna ceremony and during this period petitioner/wife was happy in the company of respondent/husband and returned to her maternal home. Her father received an amount of Rs.1 lakh from his elder brother Premsingh at the occasion of ring ceremony of petitioner’s brother and thereafter petitioner’s father received a further amount of Rs.1 lakh showing the urgency of marriage ceremony in the house. Jewellery worth Rs.1 lakh, 1kg. karaunda of silver, 1/2 kg. anklet of silver, a patti of 250 gm. of silver, mangal sutra made of gold, gold tops, long kundal jumki, 4 bangles of gold valued at Rs.1 lakh gifted at the time of marriage are with the petitioner/wife. Rupees 15,000/- was received by the father of wife at the time of gauna ceremony. He never demanded Rs.1 lakh and motorcycle. He never asked to stop further studies. He never committed domestic violence. Only to avoid return of jewellery and money, this petition on false pretext has been filed. A false case has been lodged against the husband.

4. The trial court framed total 4 issues and recorded evidence of petitioner/wife as PW/1, her father as PW/2 and admitted documents Ex.P/1 to P/6. Respondent/husband examined himself as DW/1 and Gyansingh as DW/2. No document in