Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balkrishna vs Anita on 2 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 2 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
FIRST APPEAL No. 658 of 2004
BETWEEN:-
BALKRISHNA S/O RATANLAL SITOLE, AGED ABOUT 35
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI HARISH CHANDRA TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
ANITA W/O BALKRISHNA SITOLE, AGED ABOUT 32
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: GOVT. SERVICE KHARGONE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay
Kumar Shukla passed the following:
ORDER
The present appeal is filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage, Act
(hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act, 1955') being aggrieved by the order
dated 20.10.2004 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Khargone in civil
suit No.3-A of 2002 whereby the petition filed for decree of divorce under
Section 13(1)(a) & 13(1)(b) of the Act, 1955 by the appellant was dismissed.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the marriage was solemnized
between the appellant and the respondent on 17.5.1994 and a daughter namely
Bhawna was born out of the said wedlock. It is also not disputed that the
appellant is working in employment office and the respondent is employed as
Assistant Teacher. The divorce has been sought on the ground of cruelty by the
respondent and also on the ground of desertion by the respondent without there
being any reasonable cause. It is alleged that the respondent is not performing
her marital relation as wife with the appellant. The appellant pleaded that the
respondent used to utter that her marriage has been forcibly solemnized with the
appellant against her will. She has broken the Mangalsutra and bangles. It is
also stated that the respondent has left the house of the appellant alongwith their
daughter and is living separately since January, 1999 without there being any
reasonable cause. Thus, the decree was sought on the ground of cruelty and
desertion.
3. The respondent stated that the appellant himself had deserted her and her
daughter on the instigation of his sister and mother. They used to make
comments on her for not bringing adequate dowry. She further stated that her
sister-in-law (Nanad) Kusumbai was working as a nurse and used to threaten
the respondent that she will administer poisonous injection to her. When the
respondent was ill nobody looked after her. The statement of respondent is
supported by Daulat Bai, DW - 6. She stated that the appellant used to beat the
respondent and used to demand certain items in dowry such as fridge, Gas
Chulha, Sound box, mixer etc. She further stated that because of the beating by
the appellant, the respondent was required to be hospitalized. Thus, after
appreciating the evidence, the Court held that the respondent has not withdrawn
herself without any reasonable cause. There was sufficient cause for withdrawal
of the respondent from the company of the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be
held that the withdrawal of the respondent from the company of the appellant
would amount to mental cruelty.
4. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the order of the
Court.
5. At this stage, counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and the
respondents are living separately for a period of 25 years and there is a
complete breakdown of marriage between them. There is no possibility of
reconciliation between them and,therefore, though the decree for dismissal of
the divorce petition has been affirmed but on this ground the decree of divorce
may be granted that the appellant and the respondent are living separately for 25
years.
6. Since, there is no rebuttal to the aforesaid contention and considering the
fact that the appellant and respondent are living separately for 25 years, no
purpose would be served to direct them to live together and there is irretrievable
breakdown of marriage between the parties, we find that a case for grant of
decree of divorce is made out.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment
and decree dated 20.10.2004 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge,
Khargone in Civil Suit No.3-A of 2002 is set aside. The petition filed by the
appellant for decree of divorce is decreed. The marriage solemnised between
the appellant and respondent dated 17.5.1994 stands dissolved. The Registry to
draw the decree accordingly.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
PK
