Skip to content


Lalita Prasad Vs. Mst. Bhanwari Devi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 83 of 1975
Judge
Reported in1976WLN(UC)51
AppellantLalita Prasad
RespondentMst. Bhanwari Devi
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
.....under the said act. - it is also not in dispute that prior to 14-7-72 two sons of the appellant, namely, ramnarain and krishna kumar had earlier left the appellants house & began living with their grandfather gjrga sahai in his statement, the appellant has clearly admitted his litigation with his father gangasahai as also with his father-in-law and brother-in laws he has also admitted that be is facing a trial for saving beaten a peon of the court. the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the respondent has completely failed to prove that she was maltreated by her hut-band......gjrga sahai in his statement, the appellant has clearly admitted his litigation with his father gangasahai as also with his father-in-law and brother-in laws he has also admitted that be is facing a trial for saving beaten a peon of the court. it further appears that he had also filed a suit against the state for the recovery of rs. 50,000 as damages for loss of reputation. it is also not in dispute that the appellant is the only son of his father gangasahai. in this background of admitted facts, it has to be judged whether the respondent withdrew from the society of the appellant without any reasonable excuse. the respondent in her statement has unfolded a tale of woe. according to her the appellant used to beat her throughout the period she lived with him, till she left and.....
Judgment:

S.N. Modi, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, dated 26-3-75 whereby he dismissed the appellant's application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The case of the appellant in the lower court was that the respondent Mst, Bhanwari Devi had without soy reasonable excuse withdrawn from the society of the appellant.

3. The marriage between the parties took place on 20-2-52 and six children were born out of this wedlook. The eldest child was a daughter and she was married in the year 1970. It is not in dispute that the parties lived together upto 14-7-72 when the respondent along with her two minor children Kishori and Gopal left the appellant's house and began to live with the father of the appellant, namely, Gangasahai. It is also not in dispute that prior to 14-7-72 two sons of the appellant, namely, Ramnarain and Krishna Kumar had earlier left the appellants house & began living with their grandfather Gjrga Sahai In his statement, the appellant has clearly admitted his litigation with his father Gangasahai as also with his father-in-law and brother-in laws He has also admitted that be is facing a trial for Saving beaten a peon of the court. It further appears that he had also filed a suit against the State for the recovery of Rs. 50,000 as damages for loss of reputation. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is the only son of his father Gangasahai. In this background of admitted facts, it has to be judged whether the respondent withdrew from the society of the appellant without any reasonable excuse. The respondent in her statement has unfolded a tale of woe. According to her the appellant used to beat her throughout the period she lived with him, till she left and been living with the father of the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the respondent has completely failed to prove that she was maltreated by her hut-band. In this connection, be invited my attention to the affidavit of the respondent dated 14-12-1971 (Ex. 1) and 18-1-1972 (Ex. 2) and her former statement dated 23-12-1971 (Ex. 7). Besides these documents, he also invited my attention to Exs. 3 and 8. These documents go to show that when the responded was living with the appellant the gave statement in his favour. She has explained that she gave those statements out of fear of maltreatment & beating at the hands of her husband.

4. As stated above, the respondent and her children are all admittedly living with the appellant's father Gangasahai. That goes to show that there is something wrong with the appellant lest all of them would not have begun living with the appellant's father Gangasahai. The court below has believed the statement of the respondent in preference to her former statements made to the contrary and, in my opinion, rightly.

5. I called the parties in court and made an effort for reconciliation, but I regret that the appellant did dot agree to live with his father Gangasahai. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the conclusion arrived at by the lower court appears to be correct. The respondent has been successful to prove cruelty at the bands of the appellant The lower court, in the circumstances, rightly dismissed the petition of the appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

6. There is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed with no order as to costs.


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