Dharmendra Singh vs Shrimati Rachna

S.K. Gangele, J.—Plaintiff/appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 2010 passed in Case No. 4/09 HMA, whereby the trial court has refused to grant a decree of divorce in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff pleaded that the marriage between him and the defendant/respondent was solemnised on 7/5/2004 as per Hindu rituals at village Pur. The defendant performed matrimonial obligations after the marriage upto a period of near about two years. However, after the aforesaid period, the nature of the defendant was changed. She used to quarrel with the plaintiff and his family members. She left her matrimonial home on 16/4/2006. Thereafter, the plaintiff had gone so many time to contact the defendant but she refused to go with him. A notice was sent on 26/5/2007 in this regard, but in spite of notice, the defendant did not turn up. A suit for restitution of conjugal rights was also filed, but it was dismissed on 5/3/2008. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant deliberately did not go to the house of the plaintiff.

The defendant in her reply denied the pleadings in the plaint. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff and his family members made a demand that because the defendant does not have brother, hence, half of the land and the house situated at Bhind be transferred in favour of the plaintiff. When the defendant and her family members refused to do it, she was treated with cruelty and was forced to leave the house of the plaintiff. The defendant had not been given proper meal and she had also been beaten, hence, in that situation, she had no option but to leave the house of the plaintiff, since then, she has been living with her parents. It was also pleaded that a suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the plaintiff was also rejected.

The plaintiff in his evidence has deposed the same facts which were pleaded by him in his plaint. In cross-examination, he admitted the fact that he had been living at Gwalior since 2006, and a case in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class in regard to demand of dowry and beating is pending, in which the Police had filed charge sheet against him after investigation. He further admitted the fact that his suit for restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed.

Another witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff is Narendra Singh (PW 2). He deposed the same facts. He further deposed that he had tried to council the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, but there was no result and the family members of the defendant turned down the proposal.

The defendant in her evidence deposed that the family members of the plaintiff made a demand that because there is no brother to the defendant, hence, father of the defendant should give half share in his land in favour of the plaintiff and also execute registry of the house. When her family members refused to do so, the plaintiff had tortured her and had also beaten her. She was not given meal in time. Looking to the aforesaid act, she was forced to leave the house of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has sufficient income. She also deposed in her cross examination that she has qualification of Tenth passed. She further deposed that because the family members of the plaintiff and the defendant himself practiced cruelty with her and had beaten her, hence, she did not turn up to the house of the plaintiff. A report was also lodged at Police Station, Gormi and the police after investigation filed charge sheet.

Same facts have been deposed by Mansingh (DW 2), father of the defendant and Surendra Singh (DW 3), who is the maternal uncle of the defendant.

The defendant filed four documents in support of her case; copy of the judgment passed by the Court dated 5/3/2008 as Ex. D/1 by which the trial court rejected the application filed by the plaintiff for restitution of conjugal rights; Ex. D/2 copy of the report lodged by the defendant; Ex. D/3 copy of the final report and, Ex. D/4 copy of the application submitted by the defendant for registration of the report.

Earlier the trial court rejected the application of the plaintiff for restitution of conjugal rights. The trial court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove the fact that the defendant had practiced cruelty with him or she had been living separately without any cause. These findings have attained finality because the judgment has not been reversed by any appellate court. In the present case, after appreciating the evidence, the trial court has further recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case of cruelty. In the present case, the defendant has produced cogent evidence that the plaintiff and his family members demanded half share of the land of the ownership of the father of the defendant and a house which was also of the ownership of her father situated at Bhind because the defendant has no brother. It is quite natural that the defendant had lodged a report in regard to torture and beating and the Police investigated the matter and a criminal case was registered. Hence, in our opinion, the trial court has rightly held that it could not be said that the defendant had been living separately without any cause. Looking to the aforesaid facts, in our opinion, the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for divorce. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.