Smt. Rinky vs Radheshyam Jatav
2021 Latest Caselaw 4665 MP

                                  1
                                                             F.A.815/19

      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         F.A.815/2019
              [Smt. Rinki Vs. Radheshyam Jatav]

Gwalior, Dated 25.08.2021

      Heard through hybrid system of physical/virtual hearing.

      Per Justice Deepak Kumar Agarwal

      Shri Yogesh Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant.

      None for the respondent-husband, despite notice having been

effected.

The present appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act

is filed by the appellant-wife being aggrieved and dissatisfied with

the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2019 passed by Principal

Judge, Family Court, Bhind in Case No. 153/2018 by which the

application filed by the appellant under Section 13(1) (i ka) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 ("in short HM Act") has been dismissed.

2. The facts in nutshell are that the appellant-Rinki is the wife

and respondent-Radheshyam Jatav is the husband. The marriage

between the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was

solemnized on 11.07.2008 as per the Hindu customary rites. From

the wedlock they have two children, viz., Gaurav and Priya aged

about eight years and six years respectively. Initially everything

went on smoothly. But after some time, the respondent-husband

started showing his anger towards the appellant-wife and after

F.A.815/19

taking liquor he used to quarrel with her and harassed her. The

appellant-wife did try to adjust during her entire matrimonial life

with the hope that everything would became normal in future.

3. On 17.07.2017 after taking liquor, the respondent-husband

along with his family members had beaten her by demanding Rs.2

lakhs and ousted her from the house in the night and warned that if

she failed to bring the money, she will be killed. On account of the

above act of cruelty of the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife

had filed an application under Section 13 (1)(i ka) of HM Act before

the Family Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and

decree dated 26.03.2019. Being aggrieved by the impugned

judgment and decree, the present appeal has been filed.

4. On perusal of the record of the Family Court, it is apparent

that the appellant stated before the Family Court that after taking

liquor the respondent used to ill-treat her and on 17.07.2017 he had

beaten her and ousted her from the house by demanding Rs.2 lakhs,

otherwise she will be killed. Afterwards, her father Hakim Singh

lodged a report at Police Station Dehat, District Bhind (Annexure P-

1) and report lodged by the appellant is at Annexure P-3. In these

reports, there is no allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.2 lakhs.

The appellant has filed copy of reports filed against the respondents

before the Police Station, i.e., Annexures P-1 to P-5. In support of

F.A.815/19

these reports, neither there is any seal or receipt of Police officials,

nor the statement of the police authorities have been recorded. As

regards allegation of the appellant regarding giving poisonous

substance by the respondent at Ahmedabad due to which her body

experienced allergic reactions for which Dr. Pulak Jaiswani, District

Hospital, Bhind was allegedly consulted and treatment of Skin

Specialist at J.A. Hospital, Gwalior was taken on 09.09.2017, it is

noteworthy that none of the concerned doctors were examined.

5. Appellant-Rinki (PW-1) and her father Hakim Singh (PW-2)

in their statements have never deposed that before lodging report any

Panchayat has been constituted for resolving the dispute between

appellant and respondent.

6. From the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is

evident that the trial Court, after hearing the parties, has rightly held

that the appellant-wife was not entitled to decree of divorce on the

ground of cruelty by the husband. The appellant-wife had failed to

prove any kind of cruelty or torture done by the respondent-

husband. The finding recorded by the Court below is just and

proper and warrants no interference.

7. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered

opinion that the appellant failed to establish the fact with regard to

cruelty/cruel behaviour on the part of respondent-husband. The trial

F.A.815/19

Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application

filed by the appellant-wife for divorce. Hence, the appeal filed by

the appellant-wife being devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed.

No order as to cost.

 (Sheel Nagu)                    (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
    Judge                                 Judge



vv


  SMT
  VALSALA
  VASUDEVAN
  2021.09.01
  10:54:53
  +05'30'