IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Rajesh Meghwal Versus Sharda DB CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.4243/2009. Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. DATE OF ORDER: 27th September, 2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka for the appellant. Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan for the respondent.
AS PER, HON’BLE S.P. PATHAK,J.
This civil misc. appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 2nd April, 2009 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Kota in Misc. Case No.188/2005 (Rajesh Meghwal Vs. Sharda) whereby the application filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights has been dismissed.
Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of the present appeal are that the appellant-applicant filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota stating therein that respondent-Sharda (wife) had left her matrimonial house in the year 2004 without any rhyme or reason and she had also lodged a false complaint under section 498A and 406 IPC against the appellant and all the family members. It was also alleged in the application that the applicant was always ready and willing to keep the respondent-wife with him, therefore, application moved under section 9 of the Act was required to be allowed.
Reply to the application was filed by the respondent-wife controverting all allegations made in the application and it was, inter-alia, stated that the appellant-applicant husband used to mal-treat her and had also given severe beating to her on several occasions. It has also been specifically stated that while she was pregnant, severe beating was given to her as a result of which abortion took place. It has further been stated that in the year 2004 she was thrown out of her matrimonial house and since then she was living with her parents. It has also been stated in the reply that from the very beginning of the marriage which took place in the year 2003, the appellant-applicant started harassing her and was making constant demand for bringing dowry and on one occasion her father had given a sum of Rs.20,000/- but the matter did not end there and her life was made miserable.
The learned Judge, Family Court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed three issues including relief. Issue no.1 and 2 were in relation to leaving the house by the respondent-wife without any rhyme or reason and passing of decree of conjugal rights in favour of the applicant. The applicant examined himself as AW-1 and two witnesses namely Sanjay Gurjar and Raj Kumar as AW-2 and AW-3 respectively.
The respondent wife examined herself.
After close of evidence, learned Judge, Family Court upon hearing both sides rejected the application vide its judgment and decree dated 2nd April, 2009. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the impugned judgment and have also gone through the material available on the file.
It has been the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant that the learned Judge, Family Court has committed illegality in appreciating the evidence and rejecting the application as there was no material brought on record by the respondent to show that any demand of dowry was ever made by the appellant-applicant or the respondent wife was ever beaten by him. It has also been contended that the appellant-applicant by adducing sufficient evidence was able to prove that the respondent-wife left the house without any rhyme or reason, therefore, the learned Judge, Family Court has committed illegality in deciding the issues against the appellant-applicant.
On the other hand, it has been contended that the respondent-wife was given severe beating as a result of which abortion took place. It is also contended that from the very beginning of marriage, the respondent-wife was harassed and compelled to bring dowry and on one occasion her father paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- in order to satisfy the demand of dowry made by the applicant-appellant but it did not stop here and he again started demanding more money. It is also contended that a complaint under section 498A and 406 IPC has also been filed which is pending in the court. In the last, it is submitted that on account of ‘nata’ custom prevailing in the community of the appellant-applicant, he has brought one lady Sonia who is living with him as his wife.
We have considered the submissions made before us.
In the present matter, the point which requires consideration is as to whether the learned Judge, Family Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application moved by the applicant under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
It is to be seen that respondent-wife has filed a complaint and also in her statement she has stated that she was given severe beating on several occasions. She has also stated that on account of beating abortion took place and she remained under treatment for about one month. She has also stated about the complaint lodged by her under section 498A and 406 IPC. Thus, it is clear that the relations between the husband and wife were not cordial. It has also been observed by the learned Judge, Family Court that on the basis of material it was revealed that the lady namely Sonia came in ‘nata’ and is living with the applicant as his wife.
In view of above material, the evidence which has been led by the applicant simply to the effect that the appellant-applicant husband was always ready and willing to keep the respondent-wife and is still willing to keep the respondent wife with him is not sufficient to allow the application moved for passing a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in his favour. The learned Judge, Family Court while deciding the issues has discussed the evidence in detail. There does not appear a reason to take a view different than taken by the learned Judge, Family Court while deciding the issues against the applicant. The arguments raised by the lerned counsel for the appellant-applicant have no merits in asmuch as there does not appear any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kota. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.
(SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK),J (ARUN MISHRA),J. BBL