SBCMA No.565/2004
Smt. Meenakshi Vs. Sukhdev Dwivedi
1
SBCMA No.565/2004
Smt. Meenakshi Vs. Sukhdev Dwivedi
DATE OF ORDER : - 3.12.2008
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.Manish Shishodia, for the appellant.
Ms. Aruna Negi, for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant- wife is aggrieved against the divorce
decree granted by the trial court vide judgment and decree
dated 19th March, 2004 in a case where the marriage was
solemnized on 9th May, 1984 and as per the finding of the
trial court, the appellant and respondent are living separate
since 1997.
The decree for divorce was granted on the ground of
cruelty and desertion. While deciding the prayer of the
appellant under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the
maintenance for the appellant was denied by the trial court.
However, the trial court granted maintenance for Rs.750/-
per month for each of the child till the children attain the
SBCMA No.565/2004
Smt. Meenakshi Vs. Sukhdev Dwivedi
2
age of majority.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
submitted that as per the facts pleaded by the respondent-
husband himself it is clear that he himself created the
situation wherein the appellant had to leave the house of
the respondent. The respondent pleaded in the divorce
petition itself that situation created reached to the extent
that the applicant-husband may commit suicide. In view of
the above pleading of the respondent it is clear that the
respondent himself was responsible for all wrong. The
appellant was severely tortured and appellant had to lodged
a criminal case under Section 498A IPC.
According to learned counsel for the appellant, the
appellant is yet ready to go and live with the respondent.
In the alternative, it is prayed that the decree may be
passed in favour of the appellant for maintenance amount
as well as for the marriage expenses for appellant and
respondent’s children.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
false criminal case was got registered against the
SBCMA No.565/2004
Smt. Meenakshi Vs. Sukhdev Dwivedi
3
respondent by the appellant wherein respondent has been
acquitted. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently
submitted that in a case of marriage of 1984 and appellant
and respondent not living together since 1997, the decree
was passed in the year 2004 and in case, the decree will be
reversed then no useful purpose can be served as the
appellant and respondent cannot live together. It is also
submitted that from the evidence it is fully proved that it
was a case of grave cruelty by the appellant against the
respondent. It is also submitted that appellant herself is
self-dependent and is maintaining herself and appellant
cannot claim any maintain for herself. It is also submitted
that at the time of marriage of the children whatever the
respondent can do he will do and for that no order be
passed at this stage.
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record. There are serious
allegations levelled by the respondent against the appellant-
wife. In the divorce petition in support of his plea, he gave
his statement in detail narrating the facts by which
SBCMA No.565/2004
Smt. Meenakshi Vs. Sukhdev Dwivedi
4
according to him he was cruelly treated by the appellant.
The respondent was thoroughly cross-examined and
respondent also produced witness PW-2 Dhanji, who was
neighour of the respondent. In rebuttal the appellant gave
her statement in the court and in cross-examination, the
appellant clearly admitted that since April, 1997 appellant
and respondent both are living separately and she also
admitted that she joined the service in the Cooperative
Bank. She served there for 5 years. However, she denied
allegation of cruelty, but in cross-examination, she admitted
that because of the dispute between the appellant and
respondent the persons of their community were called
wherein she and her father also appeared wherein Ex.2 was
written which bears the signature of the appellant and her
husband. She admitted her signature on Ex.3 also.
However, she stated that those signatures were obtained by
her husband forcibly. It is also admitted case of the
appellant that thereafter, she joined service as para teacher
and was getting salary of Rs.1200/- per month. The
appellant’s father Manohar Lal appeared as NAW-2. He also
SBCMA No.565/2004
Smt. Meenakshi Vs. Sukhdev Dwivedi
5
admitted that appellant and respondent are living separate.
However, he stated that the appellant was thrown out and
before that she was tortured. He also admitted holding of
meeting of the members of the community because of the
dispute between the appellant and respondent. In fact, from
evidence, it appears that the respondent’s allegation of
cruelty levelled in his statement have not been rebutted
except the vague denial by the appellant and her father.
In view of the above detail reasons given by the trial
court for holding the appellant guilty for committing cruelty
upon respondent appears to be just and based on sufficient
evidence. The appellant failed to show just cause for her
living separate from the respondent and, therefore, ground
of divorce due to desertion is also fully established.
In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the
impugned judgment and decree so far as decree for divorce
is concerned.
The trial court also considered the evidence of both
the parties and found that respondent was getting salary of
Rs.3555/- whereas the appellant was getting salary of
SBCMA No.565/2004
Smt. Meenakshi Vs. Sukhdev Dwivedi
6
Rs.2400/-. The appellant was not entitled to any
maintenance in the facts of the case as she was self-
dependent. She had income almost equal to the income of
the husband but yet she has been awarded maintenance for
her children @ Rs.750/- per month amounting to Rs.1500/-
per month then in that situation, the sufficient maintenance
has been awarded for maintaining the children. In case
appellant contacted marriage of children then at that time,
the respondent undertake to contribute as per his own
means then I do not find that the appellant can be granted
more benefit then awarded by the trial court.
There in no merit in this appeal and the same is
hereby dismissed.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
c.p.goyal/-