Skip to content


Smt. Pushpa Kumari Vs. Arjun Kumar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 49/80
Judge
Reported in1983WLN(UC)37
AppellantSmt. Pushpa Kumari
RespondentArjun Kumar
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
hindu marriage act, 1955 - section 10--cruelty--averments of cruelty not supported by evidence--held, allegation of cruelty is not established.;the averments that have been made by the respondent in his petition with regard to the cruelty fall under the following heads: - (i) improper behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent and his parents; (ii) false accusation of illicit relations between the respondent and his elder brother's wife: (iii) threats to commit suicide by burning and to falsely implicate the members of the respondent's family and get them imprisoned (iv) false complaints made to the police and other authorities by the father of the appellant; and (v) letter containing false facts being published by the appellant in the 8th october, 1975 issue of the weekly news.....s.c. agrawal, j. 1. the appeal has been filed by the wife against the decree for judicial separation passed in favour of the husband.2. the parties were married at bhiwani on 16th january, 1974. on 29th may, 1976, the respondent filed a petition in the court of district judge, udaipur under section 10 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 (hereinafter ref'rred to as 'the act') for a decree for judicial separation. in the said petition, it was alleged that soon after the marriage, the appellant came to live with the respondent at his parental house in kherwada and stayed for about 4 years and that from very first day, she started behaving in a cruel and improper manner with the respondent and that she also misbehaved with the parents of the respondent. the appellant came back to kherwada in.....
Judgment:

S.C. Agrawal, J.

1. The appeal has been filed by the wife against the decree for judicial separation passed in favour of the husband.

2. The parties were married at Bhiwani on 16th January, 1974. On 29th May, 1976, the respondent filed a petition in the court of District Judge, Udaipur under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter ref'rred to as 'the Act') for a decree for judicial separation. In the said petition, it was alleged that soon after the marriage, the appellant came to live with the respondent at his parental house in Kherwada and stayed for about 4 years and that from very first day, she started behaving in a cruel and improper manner with the respondent and that she also misbehaved with the parents of the respondent. The appellant came back to Kherwada in August, 1974 and this time she made a false and malicious accusation against the respondent that he was having illicit relations with the wife of his elder brother. She also used to abuse the parents of the respondent and had threatened to assault the mother of the respondent. In September, 1974, the appellant was taken away by her father. Thereafter the father of the appellant left her at Kherwada on 1st July, 1975 and took her away on 10th September, 1975 and while taking away the appellant with him, the father of the appellant also took away her clothes and ornaments as per the list which was prepared in the presence of attesting witnesses belonging to the village. During this time also, the behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent continued to be cruel and she repeatedly used to give the threat that she would burn herself and would falsely implicate the members of the respondent's family and get them sent to jail. In the petition aforesaid, the respondent also alleged that on 5th September, 1975, the father of the respondent lodged a complete false and baseless report with the Officer-in charge P.S. Kherwada to the effect that the respondent and the members of his family had kept the appellant confined in a godown and were not giving her food & were also mal-treating her and that copies of the said report were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, Superintendent Police, Dungarpur, Collector, Dungarpur and the Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan and that after investigation of the case, the Police found that the allegations contained in the said report were false. In the said petition, it was further alleged that the father of the appellant also submitted a complaint before Shri Gulab Singh Shaktawat, Home Minister, Rajasthan who forwarded it for enquiry to Shri Bhupal Singh, Deputy Superintendent, Rishabhdeo and the said Shri Bhupal Singh visited the house of the respondent on 13th September, 1975 and found the aforesaid complaint to be false. In the said petition, the respondent also alleged that the father of the appellant submitted a petition dated 24th May, 1975 or 25th May, 1975 before the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur against the respondent, his parents and both his elder brothers in respect of offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. with a view to get the respondent and the members of his family wrested and to put undue pressure on them. In the petition aforesaid, the respondent also alleged that the appellant had sent a letter to the Editor of 'Kherwada Samachar', a weekly news paper published from Kherwada, which was published in 8th October, 1975 issue of the said paper and that false facts were mentioned in that letter. In the petition aforesaid the respondent stated that in view of the aforesaid activities of the appellant, the reputation of the respondent and the members of his family has been greatly damaged both in Kherwada and in Dungarpur and that the further living of the respondent with the appellant would be injurious to him and that, therefore, the respondent was unable to live with the appellant and was entitled to a decree for judicial separation.

3. The aforesaid petition was contested by the appellant who filed a reply to the same. In the said reply, the appellant denied that she had ever behaved improperly with the respondent or his parents. In the said reply, the appellant stated that the behaviour of her mother-in-law as well as the elder brother of the respondent towards the appellant and the respondent was bad and they used to say that the appellant's father had only given Rs. 23,000/- and had not given a refrigerator and double bed etc. In the reply aforesaid, the appellant also stated that after staying for 4 days at Kherwada, the appellant had gone back to Bhiwani and that the respondent did not come to take her back for about five months and that only when the father of the appellant came to Dungarpur and asked the respondent to bring the appellant, the respondent and his brother came to Bhiwani and took the appellant with them and thereafter she stayed with the respondent for about three months and returned to her father's place along with her father. Thereafter again for about eight months, the respondent did not come to take the appellant and there pon the father of the appellant wrote a letter to the father of respondent and went to meet the father of the respondent at Kherwada in June, 1975 and as the father of the respondent refused to send any body to bring the appellant, the father of the appellant came with the appellant to Kherwada and left her there on 1st August, 1975. At that time the respondent did not talk to the appellant nor did he stay with her or come to her room and the appellant had to sleep in a room on the ground floor. Seeing this illtreatment of the appellant, Shri Trilok Chand wrote to the father of the appellant and thereupon the father of the appellant came to Kherwada and the father of the respondent asked the father of the appellant to take the appellant away. The appellant denied that she had levelled any accusation that the respondent was having illicit relation with the wife of his elder brother and has stated that this false averment has been made by the respondent in his petition only for the purpose of bolstering his case. The appellant has denied that she had ever abused the parents of the respondent. In her reply, the appellant further stated that when the appellant was returning with her father, the people of village Kherwada, advised her father to prepare a list of the clothes and ornaments which the appellant was carrying with her and on their suggestion, a list of the clothes and ornaments, which were being carried by the appellant with her was prepared. In the said reply, the respondent disclaimed any knowledge and responsibility for the complaints which were filed by her father and stated that she did not want that the dispute between her family and the respondent's family should be aggravated and for that reason, she did not make any statement to the police against the members of the respondent's femily. In her reply aforesaid, the appellant denied that she ever wrote any letter to the Editor of the weekly news-paper, 'Kherwada Samachar' and that she is not aware as to how the said news was published. In her reply aforesaid, the appellant stated that she had the greatest respect for the respondent and the members of his family and that she was prepared to apologise in writing for any mistake on the part of her father and that she was all the time willing to live with the respondent and the members of his family and that no ground is made out for passing a decree for judicial separation against the appellant.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the District Judge framed two issues. Issue no 1 was as to whether the behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent was cruel and for that reason, the respondent cannot live with her. Issue no. 2 was as to the relief which may be granted.

5. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent moved an application for amendment of the petition in view of the amendments that were introduced in the Act by the Marriage Laws Amendment Act, 1976. The said amendment petition was allowed by the District Judge. As a result of the aforesaid amendment, the petitioner was converted into a petition for divorce on the grounds mentioned in clauses (ia) and (ib) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. As regards the ground of desertion the petitioner inserted an additional para in the petition wherein it was pleaded that on 16th September, 1975, the appellant, with her own free will, went away from the house of the respondent in village Kherwada after taking away all her clothes, ornaments and utensils and has thereby permanently deserted the respondent and that the other goods which were given to the appellant at the Lime of her marriage have also been taken by her through the court on 2nd June, 1976 and that the appellant has deserted the respondent for a period exceeding two years i.e. from 16th December, 1975 and the respondent is entitled to a decree for divorce on that ground. The appellant filed a reply to the amended petition wherein she denied that she had deserted the respondent and, on the other hand, asserted that she was driven out from the House by the respondent and at that time the appellant was allowed to take back only some of the ornaments according; to the list prepared at the time and that the other clothes and ornaments of the appellant were retained by the respondent. In the said reply, the appellant stated that she was always willing to live with the respondent and that in future also she is willing to live with the respondent.

6. The District Judge did not frame any additional issue on the basis of the amended pleadings.

7. The respondent, in support of his case, has examined three witnesses, namely, himself (as A.W. 1), his father Mahadeo Prasad (PW 2) and Mohammed Ibrahim (AW 3), who was SHO., P.S. Kherwada at the relevant time. The respondent has also produced documentary evidence (Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 13). The appellant, in support of her case, has examined three witnesses, i.e. herself (as DW 1), Tilokchand (DW 2) and Madanlal (DW 3). She has also produced two documents (Ex. A-1 and Ex. A-2) which are post cards sent by Tilokchand to the father of the appellant.

8. The District Judge by his judgment dated 21st April, 1980 passed decree for judicial separation against the appellant. After taking note of the evidence that was adduced by the parties, the District Judge held that as between the appellant and the respondent there was no dispute and that the appellant was still willing to live with the respondent but the respondent was not willing to keep her with him. The District Judge also held that a case in respect of offence under Sections 406 and 410 IPC was registered against the respondent and the members of his family with the police by the father of the appellant and in that case, the mother of the respondent was released on anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge and other persons were released on bail by the High Court and in that case, a final report had been submitted by the police. The District Judge further observed that the efforts made by the court to bring about a reconciliation between the appellant and the respondent had failed and that in the circumstances, it was very difficult for the appellant and the respondent to live together because there are serious differences between them and the members of the family of the respondent are also not happy with the appellant. The District Judge further held that the fa hers of the appellant and the respondent were responsible for the deterioration in the relations and that it was possible that after lapse of sometime both of them may change their views. The District Judge, therefore, felt that it would not be a fit case in which the decree for divorce may be passed and he, therefore, passed a decree for judicial separation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decree for judicial separation that has been passed by the District Judge, the appellant has filed this appeal.

9. At the outset, it may be observed that the learned District Judge has passed the decree for judicial separation without recording a finding on issue no. 1 as to whether the behaviour of the appelant towards the respondent was cruel and as a result of the same, the respondent cannot live with the appellant. As regards the ground of desertion, which was raised by the respondent by amendment introduced in the petition, no separate issue was framed by the District Judge and no finding has been recorded by him in that regard. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the absence of a finding that the behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent was cruel, no ground for passing a decree for judicial separation can be said to have been made out and that the decree for judicial separation that has been passed by the District Judge, cannot be up-held and must be set-aside. The learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that for the purpose of passing a decree for judicial separation, it was necessary for the District Judge to have recorded a finding on the issue as to whether the behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent was cruel and as a result thereof, the respondent cannot live with the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, submitted that on the basis of the evidence on record, it is established that the behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent was cruel and, therefore, the decree for judicial separation that has been passed by the District Judge must be affirmed.

10. Since the District Judge has not recorded any finding on the question as to whether the behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent was cruel it is necessary for this Court to examine the evidence on record in the light of the averments contained in the petition filed by the respondent and to determine as to whether the respondent had succeeded in establishing the case set out by him in the petition.

11. The averments that have been made by the respondent in his petition with regard to the cruelty fall under the following heads:

(i) improper behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent and his parents;

(ii) false accusation of illicit relations between the respondent and his elder brother's wife;

(iii) threats to commit suicide by burning and to falsely implicate the member of the respondent's family and get them imprisoned;

(iv) false complaints made to the police and other authorities by the father of the appellant; and

(v) letter containing false facts being published by the appellant in the 8th October, 1975 issue of the weekly newspaper 'Kherwada Samachar'.

12. With regard to the improper behaviour on the part of the appellant towards the respondent and his parents, the respondent, in para 3 of the petition, has alleged that from the very first day after her arrival at Kherwada, the appellant's behaved in an improper and cruel manner with the respondent and started saying that her father had purchased the respondent by giving dowry and that during the period of four days the appellant stayed at Kherwada she had misbehaved with the parents of the respondents. In para 4 of the petition, it has been stated that again when she stayed at Khewada during August, 1974, the appellant used to abuse the parents of the respondent and had also tried-to assault the mother of the respondent. The appellant, in her reply, has denied the aforesaid averments and has. on the other hand, stated that the behaviour of the mother of the respondent and the elder brother of the respondent towards the appellant was very bad and they used to tell the appellant that her father had only paid Rs. 23,000/- and had not given refrigerator, double bed etc. The appellant has also stated that she had never abused the parents of the respondent and that the respondent and all the members of his family are entitled to the greatest respect from her. The respondent in his statement has stated that the appellant did not respect him and his parents and in August, 1974, she had tried to assault his mother. During the course of cross-examination, the respondent has stated that a number of persons live near the house of the respondent in Kherwada but none of the neighbours had seen the appellant trying to assault his mother The only other evidence that has been adduced by the respondent in support of the aforesaid averments, is that of his father Mahadeo Prasad (A.W. 2), who has deposed that soon after the marriage the appellant started quarreling and once she had tried to assault the mother of the respondent. As against this, there is the statement of the appellant herself to the effect that she never fought with her mother-in-law and that the mother of the respondent was angry with the appellant because the dowry which was given to the appellant was not sufficient and that the behaviour of the elder brother of the respondent towards the appellant and the respondent was not good. The appellant has also stated that she was made to stay in a godown by the parents & the elder brother of the respondent and that Tilokchand, who belongs to the same village, gave information about this to the father of the appellant, and, therefore, the father of the appellant came to Kherwada and took her away. The appellant has stated that she was kept in godown for the reason than she may leave the house of the respondent. The aforesaid evidence of the appellant about her having been illtreated by the parents of the respondant when she was in Kherwada finds support from the evidence of Tilokchand (D.W.2) and Madanlal (D.W.3). Tilokchand happens to be a relative of Mahadeo Prasad, the father of the respondent and has stated that the appellant was made to stay alone in the godown by the parents of the respondent and she was not looked after properly and, therefore, he wrote a letter to the father of the appellant informing him about it and then the father of the appellant came and took away the appellant with him. The said witness has proved the post cards (Exs. A1 and A2) dated 1st September, 1975 and 7th September, 1975 which were addressed by him to the father of the appellant. In the said post-cards, it is stated that the appellant was being illtreated by the parents of the respondent and she was very unhappy Madanlal (D.W.3) is also a relative of the father of the respondent and he has also stated that the appellant was made to live in the godown by the parents of the respondent and that the behaviour of the father of he respondent with the appellant was not good and that the father of the appellant had come to Kherwada and he took the appellant with him. The said witness has denied that the behaviour of the appellant towards the parents of the respondent was not good and has stated that if that had been so, he would have known. It would thus be seen that while the evidence that has been adduced by the respondent consists of his own testimony and that of his father, the appellant has examined two independent witnesses, Tilokchand (D.W.2) and Madanlal (D.W.3) belonging to the village Kherwada, where evidence finds support from documentary evidence i.e. post cards (Exs. A1 and A2) sent by Tilokchand to the father of the appellant. There is no reason why the evidence of the witnesses should not be accepted and on the basis of the said evidence, it must be held that the respondent has failed to establish that the behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent and his parents was bad or that she had tried to assault the mother of the respondent and that on the other hand, the appellant has succeeded in establishing her case that, while she was in Kherwada, the appellant was illtreated by the parents of the respondent and was made to live separately in a godown and on account of this illtreatment, the father of the appellant had to come to Kherwada and take the appellant away.

13. As to whether the appellant had accused the respondent of having illicit relations with the wife of his elder brother, there is only the evidence of the respondent. The appellant has denied having levelled such an accusation. In the absence of any other evidence to support the testimony of the respondent, it is not possible to accept the evidence of the respondent and to hold that the appellant had levelled such an accusation against the respondent.

14. With regard to the averment contained in para 5 of the petition that the appellant used to extend threats that she would burn herself and would falsely implicate the members of the family of the respondent and get them imprisoned, there is no evidence whatsoever and, therefore, no weight can be attached to the aforesaid averment contained in para 5 of the petition, which has been denied by the appellant in her reply.

15. As regards the making of false complaints against the respondent and the members of his family, it may be observed that the averments with regard 10 the same are contained in paras 6,7 and 8 of the petition and all these averments show that the case of the respondent was that the said complaints were made by the father of the appellant. In the petition, it is nowhere asserted that the appellant had any hand in the aforesaid complaints. In the absence of such an averment in the petition, no responsibility for the same can be fastened on the appellant. About the complaints which are referred to in paras 6 and 7 of the petition, there is no evidence on the record about the nature of those complaints. Nor is there any evidence to show that the said complaints were found to be false on investigation by the police. The only evidence that has been adduced by the respondent is with regard to the report (Ex. 8) that was lodged by the father of the appellant on 27th May, 1976 and the investigation that was conducted by the police on the said report. In this connection, it may be observed that in the petition, there is no reference to the aforesaid report which was lodged by the father of the appellant on 27th May, 1976 at P.S. Kherwada. In the petition, reference has been made to the report dated 5th September, 1975 lodged with the Officer-in-charge P.S. Kherwada, the complaint submitted to Shri Gulab Singh Shaktawat, Home Minister, Rajasthan and the complaint dated 24th May, 1975 or 25th May, 1975 submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that due to a typing error, the dates 24th May, 1975 or 25th May, 1975 are mentioned in para 8 of the petition and that the said dates ought to have been 24th May, 1976 or 25th May, 1976 and that in para 8 of the petition reference has been made to the report dated 24th May, 1976, which was submitted by the father of the appellant to the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur who forwarded the same to the SHO, PS. Kherwada and on the basis of which the FIR was registered on 27th May, 1976. In my view, the respondent ought to have amended para 8 of the petition to rectify the so-called typing error in the dates of the complaint referred to therein and in the absence of the said amendment, no evidence with regard to the complaint filed on 24th May, 1976 can be looked into. But even if the aforesaid legal infirmity is ignored, it cannot be said that the appellant had any hand in the lodging of the said report by her father. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the statement (Ex. 12) made by the '. appellant before the police officer investigating into the said case land the learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that in her aforesaid statement, the respondent has made a false accusation against the respondent, his parents and other members of his family about their having dishonestly retained the ornaments and other articles belonging to the appellant. The learned Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the final report (Ex.13) that was submitted by the police before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur after completing the investigation in that case. I have perused the statement (Ex. 12) made by the appellant before the police officer investigating the said case. In her statement aforesaid, the appellant has repeated the allegation about her illtreatment by the parents of the respondent in Kherwada for the reason that the respondent did not bring sufficient dowry with her and has also stated that all her things were taken away from her and she was made to live in a separate room and that when her father learnt about it, he came to Kherwada and took her with him. In the aforesaid statement, the appellant has also stated that the respondent, his parents and other relatives had refused to handover the things of the appellant to her and that suitable action be taken so that the goods belonging to the appellant are returned to her and the persons responsible for it be suitably punished. The aforesaid statement was made by the appellant on 28th May, 1976. Subsequent to the aforesaid statement on 2nd June, 1976, the father of the respondent, handed over to the police the articles mentioned in the seizure memo (Ex. 6) which was prepared by the police officer who was investigating the case and after the aforesaid property had been recovered from the father of the respondent, the police submitted the final report (Ex. 13) wherein it was mentioned that the property which had been seized, had been found to belong to the appellant and the same may be handed over to her. The said final report also shows that none of the witnesses had stated that the said property had been taken by the accused forcibly or by fraud and that none of the witnesses had definitely stated that the said property has been entrusted to the accused persons. According to the final report, there were mutual differences amongst the appellant and the respondent and the case was of a civil nature. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence on record and the statement (Ex. 12) made by the appellant to the evidence on record and the statement (Ex. 12) made by the appellant to the police, it is not possible to hold that the appellant was a party to the institution of a false criminal case against the respondent and his parents and his brother. What appears to have happened is that the father of the appellant feeling aggrieved by the illtreatment of the appellant by the parents of the respondent and the refusal by the parents of the respondent to return the ornaments and other articles which belonged to the appellant, made a report to the police and during the course of investigation by the police on the said report, the father of the respondent handed over the property belonging to appellant to the police. While considering the aforesaid statement (Ex.12) made by the appellant before the police officer investigating the case, it would be relevant to take note of the stand taken by the appellant in her statement before the court. In her reply to the petition, the appellant has clearly and categorically stated that she treats the respondent like God and that is parents and the members of his family, are entitled to greatest respect from her and that she is prepared to tender apology in writing for whatever error that has been committed by her father and that she never wanted that any proceedings be initiated against the members of the respondent's family. The appellant reiterated (his stand before the District Judge on 8th July, 1977. The order-sheet of that date records that the appellant was prepared to live with the respondent and was prepared to apologise for her mistake and it was the respondent, who was not prepared to keep the appellant with him.

16. The only other allegation about cruelty is that contained in para 9 of the petition, viz , the appellant had sent a letter containing false facts to the Editor of the weekly newspapers 'Kherwada Samachar' and the same was published in the 8th October, 1975 issue of the said paper. The aforesaid issue of the weekly newspapers 'Kherwada Samachar' dated 8th October, 1975 has been placed on record as (Ex. 2). In the said letter, which is said to have been sent by the appellant was married to the respondent and that at the time of marriage', the father of the appellant, in addition to gold ornaments, furniture and clothes worth thousands of rupees, had given Rs. 26,000/- in cash and that after the marriage the appellant was illtreated and was driven out and that the people of Kherwada are fully aware of this fact. In the letter aforesaid the appelant appealed to the residents of Kherwada tehsil to pray to God to give sanity to the members of the respondent's family. In the said letter, it has also been stated that she would be sending further letters about the illtreatment, which had been inflicted on her for the purpose of publication. The appellant has denied having sent the aforesaid letter. The only evidence that has been adduced by the responient is of himself. The respondent has stated during examination-inchief that the letter (Ex.2) was got published by the appellant but during the course of cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seen the original news that was published in the newspaper and was not aware of the person who gave it. Moreover there is nothing in the evidence of the respondent to show that the facts stated in the letter (Ex. 2) published in the 8th October, 1975 issue of Kherwada Samachar are false. In view of the aforesaid evidence, it cannot be said that it was appellant who had sent the letter, which was published in the 8th October, 1975 issue of 'Kherwada Samachar'. Even if it be assumed that the said letter was sent by the appellant, it cannot be said that the facts stated in the aforesaid letter are false.

17. It would thus be seen that none of the averments with regard to cruelty on the part of the appellant towards the respondent, as contained in the petition, can be said to have been established from the evidence on record.

18. With regard to the averments contained in para 11 of the petition, as amended, about the appellant having deserted the respondent it may be observed that under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act, desertion for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition affords a ground for passing a decree for divorce. In the present case, the petition was presented on 29th May, 1976. In order that desertion might afford a ground for obtaining divorce, the desertion might have commenced prior to 29th May, 1974. In para 11 of the petition what has been alleged is that the appellant had deserted the respondent on 16th September, 1975. The aforesaid averment contained in para 11 of the petition thus does not make out a case for grant of divorce on the ground of desertion under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Act. Further more on the basis of the evidence on record, it is not possible to hold that the appellant had deserted the respondent on 16th September, 1975. The evidence on the other hand, indicates that it is the respondent and the members of his family who illtreated the appellant and forced her to leave the house of the respondent on 16th September, 1974. In my opinion, therefore, the ground of desertion as pleaded in para 11 of the petition, is not made out.

19. Thus none of the grounds on the basis of which any relief can be granted to the respondent can be said to have been made out.

20. A decree for judicial separation could be passed only if the respondent had succeeded in establishing one of the grounds which entitle a spouse to seek judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act. In the present case the District Judge has passed a decree for judicial separation for the reason that it is difficult for the parties to live together because there are serious differences amongst the families of both the parties. In my opinion the aforesaid reason would not justify passing a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act. Since none of the grounds pleaded in the petition has been found to have been made out, the decree for judicial separation that has been passed by the District Judge, cannot be sustained and must be set aside.

21. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The decree for judicial separation passed by the District Judge, Udaipur on 21st April, 1980 is set aside and the petition for divorce submitted by the respondent is dismissed. The appellant would be entitled to her costs in this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //