Joyti vs Pradeep Mangrola
2024 Latest Caselaw 3589 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Joyti vs Pradeep Mangrola on 7 February, 2024

Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

                         - : 1 :-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT INDORE

                        BEFORE
        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
                 DHARMADHIKARI
                           &
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA

             ON THE 7th OF FEBRUARY, 2024

              FIRST APPEAL No. 635 of 2016

BETWEEN:-
JOYTI  W/O   PRADEEP MANGROLA
PARJAPAT, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE VILLAGE
KAKADADI    TEHSIL   KHATEGAON
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                             .....APPELLANT

(SHRI MOEED ALI BOHRA -ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT)


AND
  PRADEEP MANGROLA S/O KAILASH
  MANGROLA PRAJAPAT, AGED ABOUT
  26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
  VILLAGE   BAGANKHEDA    TEHSIL
  KANNOD (MADHYA PRADESH)



                                          .....RESPONDENT
(SENIOR ADVOCATE SHRI VEER KUMAR ALONGWITH SHRI RIZWAN
KHAN - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT).
                                - : 2 :-


This appeal coming on for hearing this day, Justice Devnarayan

Mishra passed the following:

                            JUDGMENT

This first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 19 of the Family Court Act has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.05.2016 passed in HMA case No.21/2014 by Additional District Judge, Kannod, District Dewas (M.P) by which the petition of respondent has been allowed and the marriage of the appellant with respondent has been dissolved.

2. In this case the respondent/husband Pradeep Mangrola shall be addressed as petitioner and appellant/wife as non-applicant for the convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the parties are governed by Hindu law and marriage of the petitioner and the non-applicant was solemnized on 18.04.2008 at village Nemawar, District Dewas in community mass wedding as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage the appellant/wife was not peforming the liability of wife and threatening to commit suicide and implicate whole family members in criminal case. Being harrassed by her misbehaving and threatening to comit suicide the respondent/husband called father of the wife, without informing him, her father took her daughter to parental home on 22.04.2014. The wife has mental cruelty against him. The respondent/husband issued a notice on 2014 and served the

- : 3 :-

notice to respondent through registered post for the dissolution of marriage on mutual consent but she did not cooperated. So, he filed a petition for dissolution of marriage before the Court and prayed for dissolution of marriage.

4. The appellant/wife replied to the petition and stated that the petitioner/husband was harrasing her to fulfill the demand of dowry and in dowry, they were demanding household utensils, T.V, Fridge, Sofa-Set, Godrej Almirah, Washing machine, Gold Chain, Ring and other domestic articles. She had performed her liabilities well, she has never missbehaved or threatened the petitioner or his family members. Contrary to that, the petitioner/husband and their family members were treating her with cruelty. On 22.04.2014, they have thrown her out from the matrimonial home. The petitioner himself was administring the appellant/wife contraceptive pills. On that reason, they are issue less. In the night, the respondent/husband used to have conversation with another woman through phone. When her wife objected him, he used to beat and threaten her saying that he will do as he wish. There are no sufficient ground for the dissolution of marriage. The non-applicant/wife has never deserted her husband so the petition be dismissed.

5. On the above pleading, the trial Court framed the issues and after recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments of the parties, passed the impugned judgment being aggrieved by that, this appeal has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri M.A Bohra, has

- : 4 :-

argued that the decree of the trial Court is against the fact and law. The petitioner failed to prove that the appellant/wife has committed any cruelty with him or his family members even though the Trial Court has inferred that the appellant was treating petitioner with cruelty. The petitioner utterly failed before the trial Court to prove the grounds of cruelty and on material points the petitioner has stated that the Court found the averment of the petitioner to be false but concluding so, the trial Court has decreed the suit. As in this case the petitioner has pleaded that the wife did not came back to her matrimonial home from 18.04.2008 to 2011 and it is undoubtedly proved that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 18.04.2008 and Gauna ceremony was performed in 2011 as per Hindu Rites and Customs prevailing between the parties. It is established that until the Gauna ceremony is performed the bride does not go to matrimonial home therefore, when Gauna was performed in 2011 the appellant/wife went to her matrimonial home and she was residing with her husband. Thus, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court be reversed and the appeal be allowed.

7. Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel with Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner has argued that the appellant/wife has failed to prove the fact that petitioner and his family members were demanding dowry. On 22.07.2014 she came to her parental hom with her uncle and in reply she has stated that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home and on the material point she has alleged false fact on the demand of dowry which she has

- : 5 :-

clearly failed to prove. The trial Court after appreciation of the fact has passed the decree thus, no interfernce is required in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court hence, appeal be dismissed.

Heard both the parties and perused the record.

8. In this case the petitioner has filed the petition for the dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and to prove that fact he has pleaded that wife was quarreling with him and not performing the duties of wife. She was threatening to commit suicide and not having co-habitation with him. On these points the petitioner (PW-1) Pradeep Mangrola in his examination-in-chief has stated that in the year 2011 his wife came to her matrimonial home, she was quarreling with the family members and she was not performing the liabilities of wife. When he tried to pursuade her she was saying that the marriage was performed against her choice so she was not residing with him as wife and she deprived him from the pleasure of married life and if he makes pressure she will commit suicide and implicate whole family in false case, and subsequently he has stated that on 22.04.2014 she went to her parental home with her father. He had issued a notice for divorce on 14.08.2014 that was served upon her but she has not initiated for dissolution of marriage on mutual consent so, he has filed this petition.

9. On these points the statement of this witness has not been challenged and in para 09 the appellant has admitted that on her complaint case of cruelty is pending before trial Court, Kannod. He has denied that he has committed any cruelty with her. He has also

- : 6 :-

admitted that the non-applicant/wife went to live with him but he has not accepted to keep her as his wife because she is threatening to commit suicide. In cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that he was not willing to co-habit with his wife. So, he was making his wife to sleep separately. Contrary to that statement he has stated that the wife was not willing to co-habit with him so she was sleeping alone. The petitioner has denied the suggestion that they were demanding the dowry.

10. The witness Kedar (PW-2), Prabhudayal (PW-3), Girdhari (PW-4) and Satyanarayan (PW-5) has supported the appellant. The main defence of appellant in this case was that the husband and his family members were demanding dowry.

11. The non-applicant/wife (NAW-1) in her statement has stated that after the ceremony of Gauna in 2011 she went to her matrimonial home when she went their the petitioner was demanding dowry and beating her, she has not made any quarrel or fight with family members of the petitioner/husband. Her husband was talking with other another woman on phone and was assualting her stating that she has to live as he wish.

12. From the cross-examination of this witness it is clear that at the time of marriage no demand of dowry was made as marriage was performed in community mass wedding. In para 07 she has specifically admitted that at the time of marriage no demand of dowry was made and stated that in Gauna ceremony the demand was made so her father has given washing machine, T.V, Fridge,

- : 7 :-

Cooler and other household articles. She has been denied that her father has given these articles as custom and by his own will. On these points her witness Poonamchand (NAW-2) matrimonial uncle of appellant/wife has admitted in par 08 of his cross-examination that at the time of Gauna ceremony petitioner Pradeep and his family members have not demanded any dowry and appellant's father by his own will has given T.V, Fridge, Washing machine, Gold chain.

13. The non-applicant/wife (NAW-1) has been contradicted from her statement (Ex.P-3) in MJC No.185/2014 the proceedings between the parties in that non-applicant/wife has stated that her husband and his family members were demanding Mahindra Scorpio Car but when she was asked why she has not mentioned this fact in the reply of this petition. Thus, the fact stated in that proceedings and statement made were false. In Ex.P-3 further she has stated in 2013 the petitioner and his family members have not demanded any dowry. But in this proceedings she has stated that the husband was demanding dowry so, her father has given Washing Machine, T.V, Fridge and other domestic appliances. On the contrary of this statement Poonamchand (NAW-2).

14. The non-applicant/wife Jyoti (NAW-1) has further stated that she was thrown out from her matrimonial home but from the cross-examination it is clear that as petitioner has stated on 22.07.2014 he sent his wife to her father and this fact is admitted by Mohanlal (NAW-3) that in para 12 of his examination and clearly

- : 8 :-

stated that on 22.04.2014 she brought her niece from her matrimonial home to her parental home. After that also she returned to her matrimonial home. Thus, she has falsely alleged that the husband has thrown her out from house after assualting and beating her.

15. The non-applicant/wife (NAW-1) has stated that husband and his family members were demanding dowry and she has filed a petition but she has not stated that she has lodged any report or complaint in Police Station or any other Court against the relatives of the husband. Thus, the non-applicant/wife has falsely alleged that the husband and his family members were demanding dowry.

16. On this point that husband on phone was talking with other women at night and when she asked about that she has clearly admitted in her cross-examination that she didn't know her name where about of the other women and she also didn't not know the phone number of that lady.

17. On these point she has not stated any statement recorded in MJC No.185/2014 dated 16.04.2015, if that was so she must have stated this fact. This fact is not mentioned in Ex.P-3. It is clear that non-applicant/wife has falsely leveled the allegation of demand of dowry, the husband was talking with other women and he was harrassing and treating her with cruelty.

18. Thus, false allegation alleged on her husband and the petitioner/husband has clearly stated his wife was quarreling with the family members and threatening that she will commit suicide

- : 9 :-

and implicate whole family in false case, misbehaving with him and his family members and not co-habitating with him and these facts have not been challenged in his cross-examination of the petitioner. Furthermore, the non-applicant wife has stated that husband was administering contraceptive pills so that no issue was born to them.

19. Thus, the appellant/wife has leveled false allegation and quarreling with husband and his family members and threatening him to implicate in the false cases constitute the mental cruelty.

Thus, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and concluded that the non-applicant wife after the marriage non- applicant/wife was treating her husband with cruelty. Thus, trial Court has rightly passed the decree of dissolution of marriage.

20. After above discussion the decree of the appellate Court is affirmed. The appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed accordingly.

21. The parties shall bare their own costs. I.A if any, pending is closed.

22. With the copy of this judgment record of the trial Court be returned back.

C.C as per Rules.

                             (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)                      (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
                                    JUDGE                                      JUDGE


                             akanksha




Date: 2024.02.21 18:46:47 +05'30'