Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J. K. Maheshwari and Smt. Anjuli Palo, JJ.
Disha Kushwaha v. Rituraj Singh
First Appeal No. 653 of 2016, Writ Petition No. 5967 of 2015 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 16660 of 2015;
Decided on 1.10.2019
(1) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 13 -- grounds -- irretrievable breakdown of marriage -- concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is in addition to grounds specified in S. 13 -- repercussions, consequences, impact and ramifications of all criminal and other proceedings initiated by parties against each other have to be considered -- these circumstances are in addition -- at time of appreciation of evidence related to grounds contained in S. 13, chances of revival of marriage may be looked into -- if reunion or revival of marriage is not possible because of existence of such ground of divorce, case of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is made out on ground so pleaded and proved -- thus, even if irretrievable breakdown of marriage itself is not a ground, it is a consequence of non-revival of marriage due to grounds contained in S. 13 -- marriage may be dissolved. (2005) 2 SCC 22, (2006) 4 SCC 558, AIR 1985 SC 935, (1994) 1 SCC 337, 1994 (Supp.) 2 SCC 588, (1996) 8 SCC 90, (1997) 4 SCC 226, (2005) 7 SCC 353, (2006) 3 SCC 778 (2007) 2 SCC 263, (2007) 4 SCC 511, (2008) 7 SCC 734 and (2013) 5 SCC 226 followed. 1921 NZLR 876 and (1969) 1 WLR 392 relied on. 2010 (1) JLJ 364 distinguished. Second Appeal No. 258 of 2012 decided on 26.5.2016 (All.) referred to. [Paras 35 & 37]
(2) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- Ss. 13 and 9 -- mental cruelty by wife -- divorce granted -- allegations of adultery against each other -- residing separately for more than 6 years -- revival of marriage not possible, therefore, concept of irretrievable breakdown of marriage attracted -- restitution of conjugal rights denied -- no perversity or illegality in findings warranting interference in appeal. [Paras 39 & 40]
(3) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 25 -- permanent alimony -- not filing application seeking permanent alimony -- cannot be an impediment to deny permanent alimony. [Para 41]
(4) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -- S. 25 -- permanent alimony -- wife and children running from pillar to post and litigating in Courts to get adequate maintenance -- nothing on record to show that wife has any source of income to maintain herself as well children -- husband getting salary of approximately Rs. 1,80,000/- per month -- living only with his mother -- wife residing separately along with three school-going children -- permanent alimony of Rs. 75,000/- per month awarded to wife and children -- to be debited every month from his salary and credited in bank account of wife -- proceedings u/s. 125 of CrPC, if any, not required to be continued further. [Paras 43, 44 & 47]
¼1½ Çgnw fookg vfèkfu;e] 1955 & èkkjk 13 & vkèkkj & fookg dk vlqèkk;Z fo?kVu & fookg ds vlqèkk;Z fo?kVu dh ladYiuk èkkjk 13 esa fofuÆn"V vkèkkjksa ds vfrfjDr gS & i{kdkjksa }kjk ,d&nwljs ds fo:) vkjaHk dh xà nkafMd rFkk vU; dk;Zokfg;ksa dh çfrfØ;kvksa] ifj.kkeksa vkSj tfVyrkvksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk gksrk gS & ;g ifjfLFkfr;ka vfrfjDr gksrh gSa & èkkjk 13 esa varÆo"V vkèkkjksa ls lacafèkr lk{; ds ewY;kadu ds le; fookg ds iqu:Tthou dh laHkkouk ns[kh tk ldrh gS & ;fn fookg&foPNsn ds ,sls vkèkkj ds vfLrRo ds dkj.k iquÆeyu ;k fookg dk iquq:Tthou laHko ugÈ gks rks vfHkokd~ vkSj lkfcr fd, x, vkèkkj ij fookg ds vlqèkk;Z fo?kVu dk ekeyk curk gS & vr% fookg dk vlqèkk;Z fo?kVu Lo;a vkèkkj ugÈ gks rc Hkh] ;g èkkjk 13 esa varÆo"V vkèkkjksa ds dkj.k fookg ds iqu:Tthou ;ksX; ugÈ jgus dk ifj.kke gS & fookg fo?kfVr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2005½ 2 ,l lh lh 22] ¼2006½ 4 ,l lh lh 558] , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 935] ¼1994½ 1 ,l lh lh 337] 1994 ¼lIyhŒ½ 2 ,l lh lh 588] ¼1996½ 8 ,l lh lh 90] ¼1997½ 4 ,l lh lh 226] ¼2005½ 7 ,l lh lh 353] ¼2006½ 3 ,l lh lh 778] ¼2007½ 2 ,l lh lh 263] ¼2007½ 4 ,l lh lh 511] ¼2008½ 7 ,l lh lh 734 rFkk ¼2013½ 5 ,l lh lh 226 vuqlfjrA 1921 ,u t+sM ,y vkj 876 rFkk ¼1969½ 1 MCY;w ,y vkj 392 voyafcrA 2010 ¼1½ ts ,y ts 364 çHksfnr] f}rh; vihy Øekad 258 lu~ 2012 fu.kÊr fnukad 26-5-2016 ¼bykŒ½ fuÆn"VA ¼iSjk 35 ,oa 37½
¼2½ Çgnw fookg vfèkfu;e] 1955 & èkkjk 13 rFkk 9 & iRuh }kjk ekufld Øwjrk & fookg&foPNsn eatwj fd;k x;k & ,d&nwljs ds fo:) tkjrk ds vfHkdFku & 6 o"kZ ls vfèkd le; ls i`Fkd~ fuokl & fookg dk iqu:Tthou laHko ugÈ] vr% fookg ds vlqèkk;Z fo?kVu dh ladYiuk vkÑ"V & nkEiR; vfèkdkjksa dk çR;kLFkkiu ukeatwj fd;k x;k & fu"d"kksZ esa ,slh dksà foi;ZLrrk vFkok voSèkrk ugÈ ftlls vihy esa gLr{ksi okaNuh; gksA ¼iSjk 39 ,oa 40½
¼3½ Çgnw fookg vfèkfu;e] 1955 & èkkjk 25 & LFkk;h fuokZfgdk & LFkk;h fuokZfgdk dh ÃIlk dk vkosnu çLrqr ugÈ djuk & ,slh vM+pu ugÈ ftlds dkj.k LFkk;h fuokZfgdk ls oafpr fd;k tk,A ¼iSjk 41½
¼4½ Çgnw fookg vfèkfu;e] 1955 & èkkjk 25 & LFkk;h fuokZfgdk & iRuh vkSj larkusa i;kZIr Hkj.kiks"k.k çkIr djus ds fy, ekjs&ekjs fQj jgs gSa vkSj U;k;ky;ksa esa eqdnesckth dj jgs gSa & vfHkys[k ij ;g n'kkZus ds fy, dqN ugÈ fd vius vkSj larkuksa ds Hkj.kiks"k.k ds fy, iRuh ds ikl vk; dk dksà lzksr gS & ifr dks yxHkx #i;s 1]80]000@& çfrekl dk osru çkIr gks jgk gS & dsoy viuh ekrk ds lkFk fuokljr & iRuh fo|ky; tkus okys rhu cPpksa ds lkFk i`Fkd~ fuokljr & iRuh vkSj larkuksa dks #i;s 75]000@& çfrekl LFkk;h fuokZfgdk vfèkfu.kÊr & çR;sd ekl mlds osru ls dkV dj iRuh ds cSad [kkrs esa fuf{kIr fd, tk,a & naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh èkkjk 125 ds vèkhu dk;Zokgh & ;fn gks rks] vkxs pyk, tkus dh vko';drk ugÈA ¼iSjk 43] 44 ,oa 47½
JUDGMENT
Maheshwari, J.- 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of all the aforesaid three cases which are filed by the either parties on matrimonial issues like divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, maintenance pendente lite or grant of regular maintenance. However, they are being heard and decided by this common order.
2. The first appeal is filed by the appellant-wife under section 19 of the Family Courts Act being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.9.2016 passed in civil Suit No. 828-A/2014 by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal granting decree of divorce on a suit filed by the respondent-husband under section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The appellant wife has also assailed the judgment passed in Civil Suit No. 464-A/2015 filed by her for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent which was dismissed by the same order. W.P. No. 5967/2015 has been filed by the husband against grant of maintenance pendente lite vide order dated 5.1.2015 passed in R.C.S. No. 828- A/2014; and M.Cr.C. No. 16660/2015 has been filed by the husband under section 482 of the CrPC for setting aside of the order dated 12.1.2015 passed in M.J.C. No. 450/2014 granting maintenance of Rs. 35,000/- to the wife.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is legally wedded wife of the respondent. The marriage was solemnized on 6.2.1999 as per Hindu rituals. They are having three children by the said wedlock i.e. twin daughters and a son. The appellant along with the children is residing separately from the respondent since February, 2013 and they are litigating in the Court by filing various Court cases. Still the wife wish to reside with the husband but he is not ready to live with wife alleging her cruelty.
4. The respondent husband filed a suit under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act inter alia pleading that immediate after the marriage the appellant wife ill-treated him, having fit of anger and she use to lose her tamper and abuse him. She also doubted on his character alleging his illicit relation with several women out of which some are co-workers in the same department and office. The appellantwife use to quarrel with the neighbours, due to which he took transfer from the State of Arunachal Pradesh to Andaman Nicobar. Even by passage of time, there was no change in her behavior and she did not care to maintain the dignity and reputation of the respondent. It is also alleged that she use to propagate, the respondent is a corrupt man and threatened him to file a criminal case, thereby he would lose his job. In recent past he joined on an important administrative post in All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal. But due to intolerable behaviour of the appellant, he is living separately in the guest house of the AIIMS since February, 2013. While the appellant and his children are residing in his official accommodation. The husband alleged that the appellant made all efforts to harass and torture him. The respondent alleged that the appellant-wife believes in performing witchcraft and also alleged that mother and sister of the respondent have controlled by witchcraft. At several occasion, in front of the senior officials after reaching office, the appellant insulted the respondent. It is said, there is no possibility of change in her behavior, however, as per the said averments, on the ground of cruelty, the respondent-husband prayed for dissolution of marriage.
5. On filing the written statement, before the Family Court the appellant-wife has denied all the allegations and pleaded that after the marriage her husband and his family members regularly pressurized the appellant to bring dowry. They have mentally and physically tortured her due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand. As per the appellant, the respondent husband is drunkard and on consuming liquor he use to beat the appellant to bring Rs.25 Lacs and once her clothes were burnt. On 20th August, 2004, the appellant gave bir
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.
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
