c^2-A IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR ?. • - • [ff' ^ FIRST APPEAL (M) .N0. ^ OF 2009 APPELLANT : Budhendra @ Birendra Patel son of NON-APPLICANT T.R. Patel, aged about-32 years, R/o ;ls^T ..., '„ ..<^^\^.^-}'j'^.. Vikas Nagar, Kotra Road, Raigarh ^iN^Y/s,*''^ _ . . _ . ^.^'^^>^'ff' ' Tah- & Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) "^>'^'\_ VERSUS RESPONDENT APPLICANT y Nirmala Patel wife of Budhendra @ Birendra Patel, aged about-26 years , R/o Vikas Nagar, Kotra Road Raigarh, at present R/o Raksapali P.S. Bhupdeopur, Tah. 8s Distt. Raigarh (C.G.). te' FIRSTAPPEAL (M) UNDER SECTION 19 (1) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT ^. -\v y«a \^\ HK3H COURT OFCHHATTKGARHAT BILASPUR DB: Hon'MeShriJusticel.MQuddusi,& Hon'ble Shri JusUce Prashant Kumar Mislwa. «1<I. F.A.fM) NO.S3 bf 2008 Bhupendra@ Birendra Patel. Versus Nirmala Patel JUDGMENT FOR CONSIEffiRATION Hon'bte Shri I.M. Quddusi. J. {•-... fc: ^' ~ •^,' Sd/- Prashaat Kumar Mishra Judge Sd/- 1-M.Quddussi Judge PostforAI -07-201T Sd/- Prashant Mishra Judge •d \k "l:tl%:'^ Ti":^?l.. *-s&' '&i'wSiSSS^ 1 'vwSSSta£% y .W ^P • ^......./'.f ^. '%i»*!y •%te ^SSKii^ <-"> •^. HIGH COURT OF Ctttttffin^ARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bleShri I.M. Quddusi. J. & Hon'bleShriPrashantKumarMishra.J. F.A.(MtNo.53of2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Bhupendra @ Birendra Patel. Versus Nirmala Patel. Shri M.K. Sinha, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Devsndra Patel, counsel fcrths r^spondsnt. JUDGMENT ( >\ /07/2011) Per Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. The appellanVhusterKl has cal^ m qyestJQn tti&tegaUty, yalkljty and propriety of the impygned judgment and decree whereby the leamed Family Court has granted the responclent/wife'sapplication undei- Section 13 6f the Hindu Marriage tot, 1955to grant a decree of dissolutionof marriage and for retum of Rs.40,(»0/-as value of fte dowry articles » also for maintenance of Rs.500/- per montti. (2) The respondenVwife mQved an application Tor dissolufion of marri^e whichtook placa bstween them on09'h May, 2004 at village Raksapali,Tahal-KharsOT,Dj^rid-Raigarh(C.G.).^A^^ they started residiro at Vikas Nagar, Kotara Road, Raigarh. Articles mentioned in Schedule 'A' was gifted by the relatives and friend at the Ume of marriage whteh are in possessio.n of husband. According to ttie wife, afterabout one month from ttie date of mamage, her-in-laws, Jeth, Jethani and grand matemal uncle as welt as husband started freaUng her with cruelty and demanded Rs.2 Lacs in cash as dcwry and on refusal they assaulted, abused and tortured her, The husband used to beat her in the state:of ititoxication and atways ttteatened of her life ifdowiy ofRs.2 l.acs 8 '''{SS^^£S^ i•.s ^:'t^ ^:;- is not an^nged. Duringfte pertod ofherillnessshe was not medicated and in June 2006 shewas left in parental house and was asked to come backontywithRs2Lacsan(inc»totherwise.QnputSuanceoffrtend!Sand relatives she was brought terck jn July, 20Q6 howeyershe ^s^^w^ similartreatment. (3) Thehusbanddenied econtente(rftheappljc^nfl(Kls^^ all the allegations are false. It wasstated that she has not broughta article of dowry- It was spwifically stated thatwhen no issue was bwn, initially at Ambikapurand later on in the house of his elder brother at Raigarh.ttw husband examined hjmselTand fQundtti^ for Iwko^ count he is fwt in a posifion to impregnate his wjfe andon kncwing ttiis hjs wjfeandherfamilymembersstartedabusingandhuroilMi^Wmandfalse cnminal case was k?dged and for thjs reason she has devetoped habit of stayingatone. (4) The Fespondent/vwfe examined herself as wett as her witnesses TeekamPrasad, Girdhari Lal, Heera Lal and Lalit Prasad ChQudhan. On the <^ier hand husband examined himsetf as wellas hisotherwitnesses namelySanjay Kumar Dubey, Gouri Shankar Patel, Jeevardhan Patel and Bhupendra Patel. Husband ateo ffroved medteal report as Ex.D/1 and TO2. On appreciaUon of evidence learned trial Court has foundthat wife has been able to prove the ground of cruelty. (S) ~ Leamed counsel for the app^nt h»aigui^ ftat e f^ recorded by tte Court b^ow are perveree ard <^ree d^ -s^-aside. Perconfra, teamedeounsel for the respondent has suppfwted the impugned judgment and decree. We have heard leamed counsel Ibr theparUesatlengttiandperusedtherecortf 9£ /-. ^ tr f: N. \. >\~. (6) Respondent/wife, in her statement has categorically stat&d-ahd remained firm in her cross-examination with regard to the allegation of demand of dowry. AW-1 MadhuriNaik who is the cousin sister of thewife has supported ttie plaint allegation and has categorically stated Uiat on a number <rf occasions the husband usedto leave his wife at her place and ftereafter they used to send her back by escorting her to the house of her husband at 12 in the night. She has stated that on one occasion she herself handed over Rs.10,0(M/- to e husband and on 2 - Soccasions she has handed over Rs.10,(CTy- on ea;hpccasion tothe wifefpr hejng handed overto the husband. AW-2 Teekam Prasad Nalk, AW-SGirdhari Lal (panch wibiess), AW-4 Heeralal Choudhari and AW-5 Lalit Prasad Choudhari havesupported the allegations made by the wife. All the witnesses have proved ttiat dowrywas demanded and wife was abysed and assaulted by the husband and his family members. (7) Husband Bhupendra Patel appearedas NAW-1 to say that he is working as Petty Cpntractor andbecause of lack of spenn counthe is not in a position to impregnate hjs wife and because oftttis she is maldng false allegations. In the cross-examinaUon of other witnesses examined by the husband namelySanjay KumarDubeyNAW-2, Gouri ShankarPatel NAW- 3, Jeeverdhan Patel NAW-4 and Bhupendra Patel as NAW-5 it has been stated that the dispute arose because of the husband's incapacity to produce a child, however elaborated altegaUons of cruelty assault and demand of dowry has not been conwncingly denied or explained by husband or his witnesses. (8) Wiffi theabove state ofevidence on record ifttie finding recQrded by the learned trial Court is examined, it appears that flie flnding regsd'ding commission of cmelty by the hysband and his family members is bom 'out from the record and is not perverse. In tfie argument taised by the ^SSSeSSK^& At .1-_ learned counsel for the appetlant nothing tras been pointed out to proye that the findings recorded by the trial Court are, in any mannCT, pervetse. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in affirming the findings as well as the judgment and decree passed by tte trial Court. (9) Consequently the instant appeal deserves to be, and is hereby dismissed. (10) No orderas to cosls. (11) A decree bedrawnup accordingly. Sd/- I.M.Quddussi Judge Sd/- Prashant Mishra Judge s~. fl?' ^f'- ; ^ QS IS8 SK