VarsL-s SmtVinim Wahne JUDGMENT FGR {IQN-SIDERATIQN </: Sd/l T.P. Shal‘ma Judge Hon'b!e Mr.R.L’-J'hanwar W cwC? ‘ j " w' Sw- . ELEhJhaDV “ Judge Pas? fer Judgment on : z!12/2Q09 Sd/r T.P. Sharma Judge H1694 CQURT OF cHHATTI5$ARH AT BILA5?UR Firs? Aggea! {M} N933 m‘ ZQQ? €cram: Hcn’bia f&r.?.?. 5'mw‘ma & Hcn‘bie Mr. R.L. Thamvar. JJ. Appgilgm' RMWahna S/o.$hri Namyan Ra‘s aged abouf 48 year-a. R/cQuar'rer‘ No.7/F STreeT No.03 Seem? No.10 Bhihimgar, Tchsi! & DisT?.—Durg g:6g Versus Respanden‘!‘ SmtVinim Wahnz W19. RaNM/ahne aged abou? 38 years; C/oNagendra Choudhary, Pio‘r NOE-9 fia‘l’e— No.12 3hreé Apari’mén‘r Laxmi Nagar Nagpur OMS.) {FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECEON 19 (1) GF THE FAMILY CQURTS ACT 1934) P‘resém" : ‘ Mrsladim Tripa‘rhi, mange! far the appeihn‘r. ' . None presen‘l’ for The responder}? Thoiugh served. JUQGM ENT (Passed on 2“ December; 2009) The judgment of “mg Caur? Laws deSiver'zd by T.P.$harmg, l:- 1. This firs? appeal uwjer Section 19 (3.) 9f The Emmy Courts Act, 1984 (in Sher? “the Act 1984') is direcfed against tha judgment 3: decree of dismissa! 9f the suif for- disseiu?iorz ef marriage by a dacrae of diverge. dafad 23.1.2067 pa£sed by the Third Addi?§onai Principal Judge, Famiiy Court. Durg. in £iviE Suit No.141A/06. 2. Judgmzn‘r v34 decree are challenged an The grcund that? the Eeur‘!’ lgglow has mt considared T'he prove& case of cruehy commtted by the raspandenf anti memby committed iiiegnli‘ty. 3. Brief facts ngcassary fer- disgosa! 9f irhis appgal as per pleadings 0f the parfias are 1’ha‘r The parfies are Hindu legal!y weddzgi spouse. The appallan‘r was married wi'rh respondent on 28.6.1937. Parems 9f the respgndant after concealing fha Truth 9f manta! iHness of #he respondent marrSed with Wrhe appeklant Behavior- gf fhe respondent was abnarma! right fmm :rhe beginning and was regulady crem‘ing prabbm for him, his par-ems and his famiiy. She used 1'0 misbehsve with ‘rhe peren'rs of The nppeiicmf mid ased 'ro quarrel with *ihem. Eariier fhe appellan’i has fiied a petition far dissoluhm of marriage by a decree 9f divorce, but? subsequentiy on :Phe assurance 9f the respondent same has been wifhdmwn. Agaih she used 1m commi‘!‘ cruehy upon the appellant Then the appeiiam regarded The maffer To Pariwarik Swish Cenfre‘ but The resggndent did m? mm up! fhen the ge‘ri‘i'ianer filed gefiiion fer disssiufian of marriage by a decree of divarce. The respmden? has denied fhe ailega‘iian and specificaiiy alleged fha? her behaviar is submissive. $he has no? aammi'ited any cruei’ry upon the aapeiiant and she is hot mentaliy iiii The agpeilant has obtained signature aver same decuments and aiso dictated ta right some ‘ietter in his supgart which she has written. She is still ready and willing ta perform marital obligatiah and ta live with the appellant. 4. On the basis 0f avermehts of the parties, learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Caurt, Durg has framed the issues and after affording apaartanity of hearing ta the parties has dismissed the suit far dissolutian of marriage by a decree of divarce. 5. We have heard learned caunsei far the apnellant and herused the judgment di decree impugned. 6. Learned caunsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the respondent is mentally ill and was not in a pasitian ta perfarm marital ahligatian and discharge famiiy responsibility as a wife. The appellant has tried his level best to adjust heri hut the respandent has not ready and willing ta adjust herself in the family af the appellant. Previausly he had filed petition far @ disso.utign of marriage by a decrge of divorce, but on The assurance of The respgnden‘h he has wi‘thdmwn fhe same. Learned counse! furfher submi'rs The? the responden? herself has executed cansen? lefter the? she is n91 in e posi?ion to discharge her mari‘m! obligatian on the ground The? her i1! behavior and she has else wri‘rren le‘H’ers To 1he eppe§!m1' wémesses which has no? been denied by :Phe' respandent in ‘ihe present case, hoiice issued f0 ihe r'esponden'i' has been served upen her, bu? she has he? made her presence . In 9rder 11s appreciate- ?ha confemians 9f The pnrfies, we have examined whieh are sufficien? fer drewgng inference fha‘t behavior 9f the agpelkmzf is abnermeE. 5he is menmlly il! and no? in a posifien Ta disehe.ge .er mari‘l‘e! obliga‘rEon. Learned counse! egsa argued the? The appenant has proved “rhe facfum af cruel’ry by adeueing evidence 9f himself and afher the evidence available an record. According To nutshell evidence af the a9?eilant and his witnesses Arshad Hussain (PW-2), Pannalai Kothari (PW-3) and Rajkumar Wasnik (PW~4), behavior of the respondent is abnormal and it appears that the appellant has tried to prove the fact that the respondent is mentaliy ili. The appellant has pieced reliance of document (ExP/z) consent letter executed by the respondent in which it has been specificaily mentioned that her behavior is not normai. She is of irritating behavior. She is not capabie of discharging her marita! obligation and she has given her consent for seaond marriage to the appeiiant. Qther letters (Exs.l\lo.P./3, P14, P/5 and W6) alleged written by her also reveal that her behavior is not normal on the ground of her mental iilness. In her evidence, she has specifically deposed that the present appellant has taken signature over ExP/Z. She has written other letters as dictated by the appellant. On close Scrutiny of the letters, alleged consent letter (ExP/Z) and the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant, it is clear that claim and the evidence of the appellant are contradictory. In one hand, the appellant has taken the ground that the respondent is mentally ill, on the other hand, he has taken the ground that the re-pondent has written letters V (5@ and consent lg‘r‘rer' in suppor? 0f her mental iilnass and inability; If gne person is menmlly iil, than i1: beyond axpectaticn That she wii! righf some‘l‘hing voluntarily and if the parser: is m‘r mgnmlh/ ill, Than izTTer written by her shows tha'r fhey are n9? gaming and fhey have bean written a? 1kg instance 0f f'ne appeilan'l’ or some. other person and su'ch pxson has succeeded in taking the. documents in favour of the apneiian‘i wii‘h a View to take benefit 9f these documents. 10,The respondent is legally weeded wife of the appellant and the appellant is under obligation to orevide better treatment to her in cose of her illness insteod of taking the some es aground for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, but the present appellant has not adduced any evidence to show that he has provided adequate medical—treatment to her. This fact itself shows the cruelty committed by the apoellant upon the respondent, disentities him for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. On h. FA D lose scrutiny of the ocular and documentary evidenoei we are of the considered view that the appellant has tried to get decree for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce in his favour by hooks or crooks without any ground available under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1.955. 12. After considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the oarties, learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family (Tourt, Durg has dismissed the suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Learned Third Additional Principal Judge has not committed any illegality or infirmity in dismissing the suit. 13.For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Advocate fee as per schedule. Decree be drawn up accordingly. Sci/— T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- ~ RE. Jhanwar Judge