Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bench: JUSTICE A Awasthy
Neha Khullar vs Rakesh Khullar on 13 May, 2003
Calling Husband Lame and Less Qualified is Cruelty, Divorce Granted
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1994 in Civil Suit No. 33-A/92 passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, the appellant-non-applicant has preferred this appeal against the finding of dissolving the marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty.
2. Admittedly the facts of the case are that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised at Jabalpur on 12th May, 1989 according to Hindu rites and customs and they have a daughter from the wedlock.
3. Respondent/husband filed a petition on the allegation that the appellant/ wife insults and mentally tortures him by saying that her husband is lame and by refusing cohabitation. It is alleged that on 29.12,1989 the appellant/wife in the absence of the respondent took an amount of Rs. 15,000/- and the ornaments of the respondent and left the house. That report in the police was lodged on 29.12.1989 in the Police Station, Gorakhpur, Jabalpur against the appellant/wife. It is pleaded that the character of the appellant/wife is doubtful and that she gave birth to a child although the respondent has not done the intercourse with her. It is further pleaded that the appellant/wife is living separately since 29.12.1989 without any reasonable cause.
4. The appellant/wife denied that she insults or passes sarcastic remarks against her husband or she denies the cohabitation. It is pleaded that her husband is having regular cohabitation which has resulted in the delivery of a body. It is further denied that she took away the jewellery or Rs. 15,000/- of the respondent and left the house in the absence of her husband.
5. Learned Trial Court has examined the applicant and his two witnesses namely, Ayodhya Prasad (A.W. 2) and Madan Gopal (A.W. 3). The appellant examined herself and one Om Prakash (N.A. W. 2). Learned Trial Court has passed the impugned decree holding that the appellant wife is guilty of matrimonial offence of desertion and cruelty.
6. The appellant has assailed the decree on the ground that the learned Trial Court has not properly evaluated the evidence and the findings are against the facts and law applicable to the case.
7. Rakesh Khullar (A.W. 1) has stated that his wife tortured him by saying that he is handicapped and she used to deny the sexual relationship. Rakesh Khullar (A.W. 1) has further stated that on 29.12.1989 the appellant had left her matrimonial house and after repeated persuasion she has refused to resume the marital relations and come back to live with him, Neha Khullar (N.A.W. 1) in paragraph 7 of her cross-examination has stated that she wants to take divorce from her husband. She has further admitted that her husband is lame and less qualified than her. Neha Khullar (N.A.W. 1) has emphatically admitted that her husband is not fit for her. In view of the statement of the appellant Neha Khullar (N.A.W. 1) on oath that she does not want to live with her husband and he is not fit for her and that he is less educated and lame. I have no hesitation in believing the statement of the respondent/husband on oath that his wife tortures him by speaking insulting words that he is lame and that she has deserted him for more than 4 years. Learned Trial Court has rightly assessed the evidence and held that the appellant is guilty of matrimonial offence of desertion and cruelty.
8. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.