AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Family Court Act read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, challenging the judgment and decree dated 06th of July, 2017 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Suratagarh (Family Court Judge), District
Sri Ganganagar, in Civil Misc. Case No.137/2015 (432/2014) whereby the learned court below rejected the divorce petitioner filed by the appellant under Section 13 (1A) (1B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act of 1955).
As per facts of the case, the appellant preferred divorce petition on 06.03.2014 under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 before the learned Judge, Family
Court, Sri Ganganagar but it was thereafter transferred to the court of learned Addl. District Judge, Suratagarh, in pursuance Notification dated
19.07.2015.
The marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the the respondent about 21 years back at Anoopgarh, and out of their wedlock six children were
born, however, unfortunately their son died. The appellant preferred divorce petition on the ground of cruelty being committed by the respondent/wife qua the appellant and his family members. Although efforts were made for settlement of the dispute between the parties, but the same did not yield anything due to cruel attitude of the wife as she was under the influence of her parents.
The respondent/wife preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also instituted criminal case for the offence u/s 498A, 406 and 323 of
IPC. Thus the dispute between the parties increased resulting into serious matrimonial dispute between them.
The learned trial court as per pleadings of the parties framed three issues including relief for its adjudication. In the proceedings, opportunity to lead evidence was closed on 07.04.2017 and thereafter the respondent/wife and three witnesses were examined. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments finally rejected the divorce petition filed by the appellant vide its judgment and decree dated 06.07.2017, which is under challenge in this
appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case in which opportunity to lead evidence was closed under some wrong statement of his
advocate, therefore, in the interest of justice while quashing this exparte decree, the matter may be remitted to the court below for fresh adjudication.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we have perused the judgment impugned dated 06.07.2017. Admittedly the application for divorce was filed by the appellant u/s 13 (1A) (1B) of the Act of 1955, wherein three issues were framed which reads as under:-
“ 1- vk;k vkossnu i=@;kfpdk dh en la[;k 01 lss 07 easas off.kkZrZrkuqlkj v;kkphh dss }kjk@vkosnu ds lkFk fookg ds vuq’q’Bku dss
mijkar Øwjwjrk dk OO;ogkj fd;k gSS\
2- vk;k v;kph ds }kjk ;kfpdk nkf[ky djuss lss nkss o’kZ iwoZ fujUr dkykfo/kk rd ;kk=h ¼iwuepUn½ ifr dks vfHkR;Dr@ifjR;kx dj j[kk gS\
3 vuqqrkks’k”
For the issues, it was duty of the appellant to lead evidence but inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, no evidence was produced by the appellant,
more so, on 07.04.2017 counsel for the appellant submitted that he is not in a position to lead evidence although petition for divorce was pending since
2014.
The learned court below observed that no oral or documentary evidence has been produced, thus, it cannot be presumed that the appellant has proved its case for the grounds set out by him in the divorce petition.
The learned court below considered the evidence of the respondent-wife (NAW-1 Smt. Parvati), NAW-2- Sitaram and NAW-3 Gopalram and held that the allegations levelled by the appellant are far from the truth.
After taking into consideration the entire facts of the case and considering the finding of the learned court below and the fact that no evidence was led by the appellant despite granting of several opportunities, either oral or documentary, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in this
appeal.
Consequently, the instant misc. appeal is hereby dismissed.