AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Yadav, J.—Challenge in this appeal u/s 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short Act of 1955) is to the judgment and decree dated 25.2.2010 passed by First Judge of the First Additional District Judge, Panna in Civil Suit No. 25 A/2009; whereby petition preferred by respondent u/s 13 of the Act of 1955 for divorce has been allowed. Marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites on 22.4.2008. After marriage respondent wife started living with the appellant husband at Bhind. After staying for some time with him she experienced certain atrocities being meted out to her that she was ill-treated by the in-laws and the appellant husband who, a handicapped person, not only abused the respondent but her family members too as also physically ill-treated her. Antagonized and having lost the patience to suffer the insulting behaviour, respondent filed an application u/s 13, 1955 Act on 12.5.2009.
On being noticed appellant/husband denied the allegations.
Both the parties led evidence to substantiate their respective allegations.
Whereas, respondent/wife led evidence on affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; wherein, paragraph 4 she categorically stated that she feels ashamed to spell out the treatment meted out to her by husband appellant, it is stated by her:
When cross-examined she categorically stated in paragraph 11 that her private parts were burnt by cigarette by the appellant.
Trial Court relying upon the cogent evidence on record allowed the petition u/s 13 of 1955 Act and decreed the suit for divorce.
Lengthy arguments were tendered on behalf of the appellant; however, the finding in respect of insultive behaviour of the appellant as has come on record could not be dislodged by the appellant.
The Trial Court in our considered opinion was justified in decreeing the suit for divorce. The judgment duly takes into consideration the material evidence on record and no perversity could be shown in the conclusion arrived at as would warrant an interference. In the result appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Cost all through.