Jagannath Prasad vs Savitri Devi

Aggrieved against the order passed by Family Court, Kota in Misc. Civil Case No. 139/2003 dated 20.9.2008, dismissing the petition seeking grant of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, present appeal has been preferred.

Heard learned counsel for the rival sides. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent after joining the politics has behaved ungracefully with the appellant and once beaten the appellant. Petitionerappellant has produced positive evidence, despite learned court below has dismissed the petition, so petitioner-appellant prays for allowing the appeal for dissolution of marriage in favour of the appellant.

On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for respondent has contended that there is no flaw or infirmity in the judgment impugned so the appeal deserves to be dismissed. After hearing both the sides, we gave a thoughtful consideration to the record and examined the judgment impugned.

Appellant-petitioner Jagannath Prasad has sought dissolution of marriage, on ground of cruelty. Factual aspect reveals that Jaggannath Prasad and respondent Smt. Savitri Devi had solemnised their marriage on 29.4.1985 and at the time of presentation of the petition before the court below a period of 23 years had elapsed to their marriage and the couple was having two daughters aging 20 and 15 respectively and a son of 10 years of the age and appellant had initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which were settled through compromise. Pleadings also discloses that both the daughters are residing with her father appellant Jagannath Prasad and son is residing with mother respondent Smt. Savigtri Devi.

The evidence depicts that AW1 Jagannath Prasad appellant-petitioner has stated that out of the wedlock three children Dipika 20 years, Nisha 15 years and Vinay 10 years were born and the couple resided together for seventeen years, later the behaviour of the respondent became unpleasant with the appellant-petitioner. He has also said that after the incident of 27.11.2002 respondent presented an application u/s 125 of CrPC and a maintenance has been ordered against him which is being paid by the appellant. He has also said that vide Exhibit-2 he had presented a petition u/s 9 against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights, which was decided through a compromise.

Perusal of compromise order dt 2.7.2002 discloses that both the sides mutually resolved their issue and agreed to live together. He has also said that because of ill-behaviour of respondent, he has presented petition for dissolution of marriage, which may be granted.

NAW1 Savitri, respondent, has stated that she is prepared to reside with her husband and has said the children born out of the wedlock, Vinay is with her and both the daughters are living with her husband. She has also stated that her husband had filed a petition u/s 9 for restitution of conjugal rights, which was compromised and she started residing with her husband but after giving beatings, he has ousted her and to defame we all the sisters, the appellant-petitioner filed a false complaint, in crossexamination, she has declined any assault or beatings allegedly given to her husband.

It emerges from the perusal of record that respondent Smt. Savitri had filed FIR no.74/2003 on 23.5.2003 at Police Station Mahila Thana, Kota Nagar, against her appellant husband, which was investigated and charge-sheet No.74/2013 was filed against the appellant for the offences u/s 498A, 406 of IPC on 11.9.2003.

Obviously, it is fortified from the facts available on record that appellant has earlier filed a petition u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was reconciled and both started living together. Appellant has admitted that he is paying maintenance to her wife decided by virtue of sec. 125 of

CrPC. Respondent Smt. Savitri has also filed a criminal FIR against her appellant husband u/s 498A and 406 of IPC, which has culminated in charge-sheet. It is an admitted position that both the daughters Dipika and Nisha are residing with appellant Jagannath Prasad but they have not been produced in evidence to corroborate the alleged cruelty of respondent. Contrary to it, there is a criminal FIR against the appellant u/s 498A of IPC and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the present appellant Jagannath Prasad.

Contesting Assembly Elections can never be termed to a disparaging act, rather it enhances the socio-political image of contesting individual and if respondent has remained a non-return candidate in the Assembly Elections, that cannot be a reason to infer anything otherwise against the respondent. Appreciation of the evidence rather discloses that respondent has been subjected to unpleasant.

In view of aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned, hence are reluctant to interfere with the same. Thus, the present appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.

No cost.