Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anu Kanwar @ Anita Kunwar vs Surpal Singh on 24 February, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 888/2019
Anu Kanwar @ Anita Kunwar W/o Surpal Singh, Aged About 28
Years, D/o Jawan Singh Baghela, B/c Rajput, R/o Kapdiyo Ka
Kheda, Post Khardewla, Tehsil Badi Sadri, District Chittorgarh.
----Appellant
Versus
Surpal Singh S/o Nahar Singh Rajput, R/o Pawand, Tehsil Girwa,
District Udaipur.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia.
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
24/02/2022
The instant misc. appeal, which is delayed by 176 days, has
been preferred by the appellant for assailing the Judgment-cum-
Decree dated 31.08.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Udaipur in Case No.626/2016 whereby, the application
preferred by the respondent Surpal Singh under Section 13A of
the Hindu Marriage Act was accepted and the marriage of the
appellant and Surpal Singh was dissolved.
We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by
counsel Shri Saruparia representing the appellant and have gone
through the impugned Judgment.
A bare perusal of the findings recorded by the Family court in
Para No.1 of the Judgment, reveals that the respondent filed an
application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was
(2 of 2) [CMA-888/2019]
decreed on 23.04.2015. Despite the decree of restitution of
conjugal right, the appellant Anu Kanwar did not return to the
matrimonial home for performing her conjugal obligations. The
respondent categorically alleged in the divorce application that the
appellant had deserted him without any justification. Though the
appellant appeared before the Family Court and took a plea of
having been turned out of the matrimonial home but apparently,
this plea is factually unsustainable and incorrect. Since there was
a subsisting decree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the
respondent, if at all, the appellant was desirous of resuming her
matrimonial relationship then she should have expressed before
the Family Court that she was desirous of going back to her
husband's house. However, no such plea was advanced on behalf
of the appellant. The findings recorded by the learned Judge,
Family Court on issue No.2 regarding willful desertion by the
appellant is thus substantiated from the evidence available on
record. Likewise, the finding recorded by the Family Court on issue
No.1 regarding irretrievable break down of the marriage is also
substantiated by the evidence available on record.
As a consequence, we are of the opinion that the impugned
Judgment-cum-Decree dated 31.08.2018 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Udaipur in Case No.626/2016 does not suffer
from any infirmity, illegality or irregularity warranting interference
therein. Thus, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed as being
delayed and so also on merits.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
13-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
