In an appeal against a Family Court judgment granting a divorce to the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the High Court of Rajasthan held that the allegations of cruelty were proved on cogent evidence. Finding no infirmity in the lower court's decision, the appeal was dismissed.
The appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 935/2022
Maga Ram S/o Shri Gorkha Ram, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Barnau, Tehsil Balesar Distt. Jodhpur. ----Appellant
Versus
Gomati D/o Shri Jetha Ram, B/c Jat, R/o Jatipura, Tehsil Osian Distt. Jodhpur. ----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhanraj Vaishanav For Respondent(s) : ---
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Judgment
20/10/2022
This civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 18.04.2022 passed by the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case No. 699/2019 by which application filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed.
The respondent-wife filed for divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty before the Family Court No.3, Jodhpur in Civil Original Case No. 699/2019 wherein it was stated that the marriage of the respondent with the appellant was solemnized on 24.06.2003 when respondent-wife was only about 11 years old. Subsequently, the respondent-wife on attaining majority, under the pressure of family members performed ‘Gona’ on 03.07.2013 as social ritual and started living with the appellant-husband. However, over time, the behavior of the husband and his family members towards the respondent-wife turned hostile, who frequently hurled abuses and used vile language.
(2 of 2)
[CMA-935/2022]
In the divorce petition, it was further pleaded that the respondent had acquired the qualification of B.Ed., whereas the appellant-husband is an illiterate person, who is suffering from mental disorder. It was also stated in the divorce petition that appellant-husband and respondent-wife have been living separately since 2014.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Family Court No. 3, Jodhpur framed two issues. The respondent was examined as PW1 whereas the appellant was examined as DW1. On behalf of the respondent, two documents were exhibited.
The learned Family Court No. 3, Jodhpur after analysing the oral and documentary evidence presented by both the parties concluded that the allegations of cruelty had been proved on the basis cogent oral and documentary evidence. It is noticed that the respondent has been living separately since 2014 as she was treated cruelly by the appellant-husband and his family members. The Family Court No.3, Jodhpur discussed the evidence in apropos manner and was absolutely justified in allowing the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, vide judgment dated 18.04.2022, which does not suffer from any infirmity, factual or legal, warranting interference whatsoever.
As a consequence, we find no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
41-KshamaD/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court of Rajasthan should interfere with the Family Court's judgment allowing the wife's petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on grounds of cruelty.
Whether the allegations of cruelty and separate living proved by cogent evidence warrant the Family Court's order for dissolution of marriage.
Whether the High Court finds any infirmity, factual or legal, in the impugned judgment of the Family Court warranting interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maga Ram
Gomati
Sandeep Mehta
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
