Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh vs Smt. Sheela Singh @ Madhusingh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4438 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                   AFR

           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         FAM No. 94 of 2013

            (Judgment/Order Reserved on 16.06.2022)

                     (Delivered on 13.07.2022)

     Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh S/o Shankar Prasad Aged About 30
     Years R/o Prathmik Swasthya Kendra Mardapal, Tah.
     Kondagaon, P.S. Kondagaon, Distt. Kondagaron, Chhattisgarh
                                                --- Petitioner

                               Versus

     Smt. Sheela Singh @ Madhu Singh W/o Ramkeshwar Singh
     Aged About 26 Years R/o Center-1 C, 349 T.S. Balco Korba,
     P.S. BALCO, Distt. Korba C.G., Chhattisgarh
                                               --- Respondent

For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate along with respondent herself.

DB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Goutam Bhaduri, Judge & Hon'ble-Mrs. Justice Rajani Dubey, Judge

C.A.V. Judgment/Order

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J

1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree

dated 05.10.2013 passed by the Family Court Bilaspur in

Civil Suit No.25-A/2006 whereby the petition filed by the

husband seeking divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 was dismissed.

2. (a) The brief facts of the case as have been pleaded by the

husband before the court below, are that the marriage took

place in between the appellant and respondent on

11.05.1995. Thereafter when she became pregnant

unilaterally she got aborted the child without the consent of

the husband. It is pleaded that after the marriage, the wife

was found suffering with Tuberculosis and she often used to

go to her maternal house and the applicant being a

government doctor, could not always stay with her,

therefore, for her benefit of health, she was sent to her

parental house for treatment in 1995. Thereafter, many a

time, he tried to take her with him but she used to take

pretexts. It is stated that since she was not interested to stay

with the husband, he filed an application for dissolution of

marriage on 02.02.1996 which was eventually withdrawn

before the Court at Jagdalpur and again on 06.11.1998 filed

application for dissolution of marriage. The wife also filed

application on 06.08.1996 before the Addl. Sessions Judge,

Korba for dissolution of marriage which eventually was

withdrawn on 15.03.2004.

2(b) It was pleaded that an FIR was lodged levelling false

allegations against the husband and his entire family

members, for which, a case was registered under section

498-A of IPC, thereby the appellant and his family members

were put to harassment and in such adverse situation, the

mother of appellant died on 06.07.1999 and despite

knowing the information of death of his mother, the wife

had not come to visit the husband. It is also stated that

during the pendency of matrimonial case, the criminal case

came to be finally decided on 28.02.2006 wherein the order

was passed acquitting the husband and his entire family

members. Subsequently the acquittal order was challenged

by the wife in criminal revision before the High Court and

eventually the said revision bearing CRR No. Cr.R.No.340/

2006 was dismissed on 28.11.2019.

3. (a) Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the

pleadings made by him in application for divorce as also the

contents of reply filed by the respondent and would submit

that because of false report made by the wife, his entire

family members were arrested. He would further submit that

the acquittal order which was filed would show that false

allegations were made and because of false report and

initiation of subsequent proceedings, the reputation of the

petitioner being a doctor was adversely affected in the

society. Referring to acquittal order passed by the learned

court below wherein the trial was conducted, he would

submit that while acquitting the appellant along with all

family members, the entire allegations were considered and

the order was passed on merits.

3(b) He would submit that there has been irretrievable

break down of marriage as the parties have been living apart

since 15.05.1996 which is admitted by the father of

respondent that she is residing separately. He further

submits that not only the complaint filed by the wife u/s

498-A came to be dismissed resulting into acquittal but also

the complaint of bigamy filed u/s 494 IPC ended with

dismissal.

3(C) He would further submit that apart from personal

attack, the father of respondent made a correspondence with

the employer State on the ground that the appellant has

obtained the job on the basis of a false certificate, for which,

the litigation was filed before the High Court which too got

dismissed. Therefore, if all the acts are taken into account, it

would certainly amount to cruelty meted out by the wife.

Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Rani

Narasimha Sastry v. Rani Suneeta Rani 2019 SCC

OnLine SC 1595 he would further submit that in the like

nature of cases, it is held that false accusations made by

one spouse against the other would amount to cruelty. He

also referred to the judgment passed by this Court in Anjani

Bhattacharya v. Smt. Latika Arpita Bhattacharya ILR

2019 Chhattisgarh 2418 and would submit that the

finding of the trial Court would be wrong.

4. (a) Per contra, Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel

appearing with the respondent submits that the petitioner

tried to show that the wife was suffering from Tuberculosis

and was forced to leave the house. He would submit that the

appellant being a doctor took the advantage of his position

and falsely declared the wife to be a patient of Tuberculosis,

which later-on was negated by the subsequent medical

examinations and prescriptions, which itself would reveal the

fact that in order to send away the wife, false allegations

were made.

4(b) He further submits that the appellant was in illicit

relations with one Sudha Namdeo who was given the status

of wife, which would be evident from the Life Insurance

Policies wherein name of Sudha Singh was shown as wife and

nominee. He also submits that in Voters ID also Sudha was

shown as wife of the appellant, therefore, this conduct would

show that from the day one, the appellant wanted to get rid

of the wife on one pretext or the other. He further submits

that within one year of marriage, the divorce petition was

filed which would show the intention of the husband.

4(c) With respect to the report made u/s 498-A, he would

submit that the documents and letters which were written

prior to occurrence of incident and making the report, would

reveal that the wife was subjected to cruelty and harassment

and eventually the report was made. He further submits that

even if the acquittal order was there, this would not

completely exonerate the husband of any charge of cruelty

and on the part of the husband, the allegation of respondent-

wife being treated with cruelty still exists. He refers to the

letters written by the wife to her parents and submits that

these letters would show that she was subjected to torture

for demand of dowry and treated with cruelty and she was

forced to undergo abortion on false pretext.

4(d) Referring to the statement of one Jayant Verma, he

would submit that in criminal case, the documents were

exhibited and the statements were recorded to show that the

appellant got married to Sudha Singh, therefore, on some

pretext or the other, the appellant tried to get rid of the

respondent wife, hence it cannot be said that case of cruelty

was not at all existing on the part of appellant. Learned

counsel further submits that in criminal case, no

representation was made on behalf of the State and

complainant, therefore, proper adjudication could not be

done. He also placed reliance in (2017) 14 SCC 194 (Raj

Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja) to further contend that mere

filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to

file the complaints. He further submits that in respect of

service matter of the appellant, the dispute was not raked-up

by the wife but it was carried forward by her father and she

only intervened in the case.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a length.

Since the respondent was present in Court, she was also

given opportunity of hearing to argue the case in addition to

the arguments already advanced by her counsel, as such,

she has also argued her case for a considerable time.

6. It is not in dispute that the parties were married on

11.05.1995 and they have been living apart since

15.05.1996 and since then she is residing separately with the

father. Therefore, approximately for one year, they stayed

together and thereafter parted ways. The said fact is fortified

by the statement of her father Ram Swaroop Sinha at para

16. In pleadings made by the husband at Para 7(a) & 7(b), it

is alleged that the allegations were made that he had illicit

relations with one staff-nurse Sudha Namdeo. It has further

been pleaded that the wife has lodged report making false

allegation against the appellant as well as his age-old

parents, unmarried sister and unmarried brothers at Police

Station Chandini District Surguja that she was subjected to

torture for demand of dowry of Rs.1 lakh. In reply to Para 7

of such pleading, it was contended by the wife that the

husband used to maintain illicit relations with one Sudha

Namdeo and spent nights with her. It is further stated that

when a report was made u/s 498-A of IPC certain letters

dated 13.08.1995, 02.10.1995 & 05.11.1995 were seized

during police enquiry which are filed in the case. She further

reiterated the fact that the report made against the family

members including the appellant about torture of non-

applicant for demand of dowry is correct and the police after

investigation came to conclusion that the offence u/s 498-A

is made-out and the charge sheet was filed.

7. During the course of hearing before this court, respondent

wife referred to different letters alleged to have been written

by her while she was staying with the husband and

thereafter. In such letters which were allegedly written on

09.02.1996, 14.02.1996 & 18.02.1996, it has been

contended by the wife that the husband used to harass the

wife, therefore, the cruelty was meted out by the husband to

the wife. As against this, the copy of the FIR made under

section 498-A of IPC is placed on record by the respondent to

show that it was lodged on 19.06.1996. A perusal of the FIR

would show that it was filed against the appellant husband

as well as his aged parents, unmarried sister and brothers.

In such FIR, it was alleged that she was treated with cruelty

for demand of Rs.1 lakh coupled with a further allegation

that he had relations with one lady namely Sudha Namdeo.

8. Pursuant to the report made by respondent wife, enquiry was

conducted and during such enquiry, the documents including

the letters which depict the alleged cruelty meted out by the

husband to the wife were also seized. A perusal of the said

order would show that the report was made after an

application was filed by the husband under Section 13 of the

Hindu Marriage Act.

9. The Court accepted the contention of the husband in a

finding that after the notice of divorce was received, wife

Sheela Singh fabricated the letters and falsely inculpated the

husband and other family members and eventually it was

held that no offence u/s 498-A of IPC is made out. Therefore,

after evaluating the evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate

acquitted the husband and all the family members by order

dated 28.02.2006. At para 20 of the judgment, the learned

trial Court has recorded the finding of acquittal. Therefore, it

is not in dispute that the said acquittal order passed on

28.02.2006 was filed before the learned Family Court.

Though such document was not exhibited, yet it is a judicial

pronouncement.

10. The M.P. High Court (Indore Bench) in Second Appeal

No.303 of 1958 (Jadi Bai Versus Harsingh) decided on

08th March, 1961 reported in 1963 JLJ 842 had reiterated

the view taken by Their Lordships of Privy Council in Tulshi

Ram v. Kamla Prasad Balam Das, 1937 AIR (Pat) 222

and held that where the documents are duly produced

without objection and being certified copies of public

documents can be taken to be proved and where after such

production the opposite party had fair opportunity to rebut

that material, it cannot be said that the documents should be

left out of consideration on account of non-compliance with

what may be called a mere formality of making an

endorsement as to their admission.

11. Here, in the instant case, it has not been disputed about the

issuance of the document i.e., certified copy of the judgment

of acquittal. Therefore, in exercise of power under Order 41

Rule 27 of CPC, the discretion of Court would lean in favour

of the appellant by inferring the fact that a criminal trial was

held which resulted into acquittal. It being certified copy of

judgment is accepted in evidence. This Court In Abhishek

S/o Narayan versus Seema W/o Abhishek 2021

LawSuit (Chh) 869 while allowing the application under

Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, held that certified copy of the

judgment is accepted as evidence being a relevant fact.

12. The order of acquittal was challenged by the wife in Criminal

Revision No. 340/2006 filed before the high Court. The

learned single Bench of this Court, after hearing the

argument at length especially the contention of the wife that

the acquittal judgment of the trial Court is bad in law as also

considering the facts on record observed that the learned

trial Court has appreciated the oral and documentary

evidence at Paras 10 to 13 which is clear from Ex.D-1 to D-

68. It was further observed that the trial Court has examined

and cross examined witness Ramkeshwar Singh in evidence

and came to a finding that the prosecution has failed to

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, on the other hand,

the accused respondents have succeeded to prove their

defence. It was therefore further held that the learned trial

Court has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charge.

This order of dismissal of revision affirming the order of

acquittal which was at the behest of respondent No.5 is also

not in dispute. The certified copy of the same has been

placed on record.

13. The respondent wife by reading the correspondence, which

was stated to have been made prior to the report u/s 498-A,

has tried to establish that she was treated with cruelty. It

was eventually concluded by way of FIR. The said argument

of the respondent appears to be completely misconceived for

the reason that the evidence which was led before the Court

of Judicial Magistrate including the letters written which

were alleged to be seized during the enquiry by the Police

were produced in the criminal case. Later on, after the

evidence was adduced the court below came to conclusion

that no offence u/s 498-A of IPC is made out to hold that the

wife was treated with cruelty for demand of dowry. Any

effort, at this stage, would amount to reviewing the finding

arrived at by the Judicial Magistrate as also the High Court

and would not be in proper judicial propriety to disturb the

finding in the revision passed by the High Court.

14. The further submission has been made by the wife that the

husband being a doctor took the advantage of his position

and false ailment of Tuberculosis was clamped. During the

course of submission, the document has been referred by the

respondent wife that while she was tested for Tuberculosis at

her parental place, it was all tested negative. Certain letters

written by the husband have been referred to demonstrate

that it was the husband who insisted that the wife was ailing.

However, this Court cannot act as an expert to give an

opinion that whether the respondent was actually suffering

from Tuberculosis for the reason that the subsequent

negative report came. Whereas in the application for divorce

the husband only stated that she was suffering from

Tuberculosis before the marriage and it was concealed

during marriage. However, after the marriage, she was

being treated. Except this, no inference can be arrived at by

the submission of the parties.

15. The documents and the facts surfaced on record would show

that on the basis of report made by the wife u/s 498-A of IPC

the husband along-with all other family members were roped

in and they were eventually arrested. The respondent wife

tried to canvass that she was treated with cruelty by the

husband by showing that he wrote certain love letters which

were recovered from the suit case which are marked as

Ex.D-1 to D-3. It has been further stated that in Life

Insurance Policy, the wife was shown as Sudha and not the

respondent. The LIC Policies were marked as Ex.D-7, D-8, D-

9 & D-10. Likewise, the voters list was marked as Ex.D-5

wherein at Sl.No.479 the name of R.K. Singh appears and at

Sl.No.480 the name of Sudha Kushwaha, wife of R.K.Singh is

shown. These evidences may invite the inference about the

character of husband, however, will not over ride the report

made by wife under Section 498-A of IPC and subsequent

acquittal by the Courts on merits.

16. The Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh Versus Jaya Ghosh

(2007) 4 SCC 511 has indicated the illustrative cases

wherein the inference of mental cruelty can be drawn. Para

101 is relevant and quoted below:

"101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive :

(I) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appriasal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v)      A sustained course of abusive and
         humiliating      treatment calculated to
         torture, discommode or render miserable
         life of the spouse.
(vi)     Sustained unjustifiable      conduct and

behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty.

The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty."

17. Further the Supreme Court in Rani Narasimha Sastri Vs.

Rani Suneela Rani 2019 SCC Online S.C. 1595 has

observed that when a prosecution was launched against the

husband on a complaint made by the wife u/s 498-A of IPC

making serious allegations in which the husband and his

family members were constrained to undergo trial which

ultimately resulted into acquittal, then in such case it cannot

be accepted that no cruelty was meted out on the husband,

therefore, he can make a ground for grant of decree of

dissolution of marriage u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. In the

instant case, the report was made by the wife not only

against the husband but also against his aged parents,

unmarried sisters and brothers of the appellant. Admittedly,

they were arrested and had sustained the torment of

criminal trials. A perusal of the judgment of acquittal of the

learned court below followed by the finding arrived by the

High Court would show that the appellant was acquitted of

the charges by recording the clear findings.

18. In case of Raj Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja AIR 2017 SC

2138 the legal position as to when a false complaint would

amount to cruelty was also examined, as below :

                "11.     Cruelty     can    never   be   defined    with
           exactitude.    What is cruelty will depend upon the

facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband, his family members and colleagues, which would definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 (For short the Act). However, if it is found that the allegations are patently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of a spouse levelling false accusations against the other spouse would be an act of cruelty. In the present case, all the allegations were found to be false. Later, she filed another complaint alleging that her husband along with some other persons had trespassed into her house and assaulted her. The police found, on investigation, that not only was the complaint false but also the injuries were self-inflicted by the wife. Thereafter, proceedings were launched against the wife under section 182 IPC".

19. Applying the above legal proposition, we are of the opinion

that in this case false accusations were made by the wife and

having made the report with false allegations, the appellant

and his entire family members including his age old parents

were forced to pass through the of criminal trial which would

definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the

society. Certainly it will have an adverse affect in the social

standing of a family as it results into isolation of a person

who faced criminal trials because of the false accusations

made by the other spouse. Therefore, before making such

allegations, regard must be had to social status, educational

level of the parties and the society they move-in, otherwise,

such allegations would amount to cruelty.

20. In the landmark decision of Mayadevi vs. Jagdish Prasad

(2007), the Supreme Court held that both either spouse can

apply for divorce on grounds of any kind of mental cruelty

faced and the provision was not just restricted to woman but

extended to men as well. In that case, the husband was

granted divorce on grounds of repeated cruelty inflicted by

his wife.

21. Further in a recent decision of Joydeep Majumdar v.

Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) (supra), a similar issue

was dealt with by the Supreme Court where the wife had

marred the reputation of the husband by defamatory

complaints to husband's superiors in army, which led to a

Court of inquiry held by the Army authorities against the

husband. His reputation was damaged and career progress

suffered. The Supreme Court held "When the reputation of

the spouse is sullied amongst his colleagues, his superiors

and the society at large, it would be difficult to expect

condonation of such conduct by the affected party." The

Court also held that the High Court was in error in describing

the broken relationship as normal wear and tear of middle

class married life and the marriage was dissolved.

22. In the present case, apart from the appellant-husband, his

entire family members were inculpated. The wife alleged

that the husband has treated her with cruelty and he was not

entitled to divorce. In acquittal judgment of the Court below,

it was categorically found that the allegations are patently

false. If the letters on which the respondent wife vehemently

relied are examined, the cumulative effect of which would go

to show that periodically the allegations are made against

the husband and all her in-laws. The authenticity of the

letters was not accepted by the learned trial Court while

adjudicating the trial. As such, when the finding has been

arrived at about the conduct of the respondent who levelled

false accusations against the appellant, it would lead to show

"Cruelty" on her part.

23. The Supreme Court in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs.)

(1994) 1 SCC 33 held that mental cruelty in Section 13(1)

(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts

upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as

would make it not possible for that party to live with the

other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a

nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live

together. The situation must be such that the wronged party

cannot reasonably be asked to put-up with such conduct and

continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to

prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to

the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such

conclusion, regard must be had to the social status,

educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the

possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in

case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts

and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable

to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not

amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be

determined in each case having regard to the facts and

circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and

allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which

they were made.

24. The appellant is a Doctor and as stated during the course of

hearing, the respondent wife is a private teacher. Therefore,

facing a criminal case would always castigate a stigma in the

Society. The report u/s 498-A of the IPC cannot be used as a

tool to teach a lesson to the family members of the husband

as it may adversely affect the future prospects of a young

professional and it may take long time to fill up the gap.

Therefore, we are of the opinion that false accusations made

by the wife against the entire family members under section

498-A would amount to mental cruelty and such conduct of

respondent wife which inflicts upon the appellant husband

such mental pain and suffering would make it not possible

for her to live with the appellant husband.

25. With respect to bigamy, copy of the order dated 14.09.2011

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba in criminal

revision No.36/2011 wherein the respondent was also a

party, has been produced by the wife. A perusal of the same

would show that a complaint was filed by the wife u/s 494

read with section 39 wherein certain interim order dated

19.12.2017 was granted. Though the bunch of documents

have been filed by the wife, what was the ultimate fate of the

complaint filed by the wife u/s 494 has not been made clear.

Therefore, at this stage, no finding can be given about the

relationship of the husband with the lady Sudha Namdeo.

26. Further the nature of accusations made against each other

in a matrimonial case would show that since 1996, the

parties are living apart and litigating in different courts.

Taking into such facts into consideration, we are of the view

that that there is irretrievable break-down of marriage which

is beyond repairs. Under the circumstances, we allow the

appeal and grant a decree of divorce to the husband. The

marriage solemnized between the parties is dissolved and

accordingly a decree be drawn.

27. Now coming to grant of alimony to wife, it is apparent from

the facts and pleadings that the appellant is a Government

Doctor and the respondent is a teacher in a private school.

Since the appellant is a Government Officer drawing salary

from State exchequer and looking to the status of parties, in

order to avoid further litigation between the parties, it would

be appropriate for us to grant alimony of Rs.15,000/- per

month to the wife, which would be deducted from the monthly

salary of appellant. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant

shall pay maintenance of Rs.15000/- per month which the wife is

entitled to received through the court below after making

necessary deductions every month from the salary of the

appellant.

                 Sd/-                                         Sd/-
            (Goutam Bhaduri)                             (Rajani Dubey)
                 Judge                                        Judge




Rao


                       Head Notes

The report u/s 498-A IPC cannot be used as a weapon to

teach a lesson to the entire family of husband to settle a

matrimonial score with the husband.

ifr ds lkFk oSokfgd fookn ds fuiVkjs gsrq Hkkjrh; naM fo/kku dh /kkjk 498&d

ds v/khu fjiksVZ dk iz;ksx ifr ds leLr ifjokj dks lcd fl[kkus ds fy, ,d

gfFk;kj ds :i esa ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA