i®li;3i:.y?^^t^';fl Sll^Nteil^i^llittlil'te^S^^SI^^K^® HI(3HC€^1|T<3>F^I^NATlFlS><3iRK^ ,l^l|iiisi|i|Si||1|||||j||l|||||||^||||||l|ria^^^ :',^w!f®i^|JS||g||ggiili?Ulg^^ »».,....,»^j»»»»^^ 4 w ;;1 w'^ itiii1 1 ^i-ll' t:: lAiiRellaiitl firsfrlA^^al ^rN^.^Of^OOa S|i1i|N|plat^o^ Vs. ^lll^porid:ent.. iDr. K.R. Sonwani. JUDG^ENTFilf'C^^IDER^ JHin^e^hriilNfh^naitK^INndratkiBti'.J c-.':. •"••' :'' .'' ' .•'• ..:'.'.'-•/ '•\.."'•""• ..•' •.•1;'.:^ • ;-; ...':?,;.,•;'•:;..•.1^: ~;':;"' .'•••"• .^yr;3'^<c3<>J^^^^ 'PostN^P*^ounten1ient^ji^|ii|i Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge .^..1 •^. 1. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge •-S-ea"—®^"' [^ii^.^^^Ji:^ iw ^iSif^^:".^ i^! \/' 11:''! '/ Hl(3MG^URT^FiGHtiftRTil^ARHAtBI^^ '{.''•':^-.:^-':'\^ '•::"'' '•• CORAM: pG»n*lili^H^.B^K^riWia & H^'l]iI6^1liiill^rili^in^hainclrakair. *1,J Firet^DDiairiVlllN<>.746f2008 AbBiellant/ Def^htl^nt Smt. H^lata Son^nj, ^ Sonwthi, aged aboiJt 42 years, D^ 0.R. Bain^he/R/d.nriulSiipur.Rajnaind :<CG).:...',.;:.,,-.1,;4:,:,;'^^^ Versus ResDOndent/ Plairitiff Dr. KIR. Sonwarii, ^/6. Late Raj MaNant Jagtu Sonvvani, agecl aboyt ^pi y^ars, F^. Qr.No; C-11|8, Gu^ Colpny, New Ra|ejndra^^^N ^cGr11:.1.-^.:.^;' {Appeal under Sectioh 19 (1) of the FamilYCojurt Act, 1984) pnesent: Shri K.K.Singhi,douns61f6rt^ Shri S.S. Rajpytr cpi^^lforthe^re^ JUDGMEN^ j (Deljvered on ] {3 day 6f February, 201 Q) PerT.P.Sharma,J. - Challengein thisappeal is tothe jydgmentand dec 4-2008 passed by Ist Additiohal Principal Judge, Family CQUI^ Raipur in civilsuitNo.466-A/2007,wherebylearnedJudgeFamjlyCourtha&^^a^^^ the suif for dissolution 6f marriage by a decree of divorce filed on behalf of the respondent. Thedecreeis impugried on the ground thatwithoutan^^ procrf 6f cruelty the court below ha6^^ ^ committed jllegaljty. z ^^&ss^ •.^sss^ •-i<;^1: •i-^ ^,: v 2) Brief facts nece^ary^jor dispGsal ^ pleadings^theparties.thepahiesarelig^ marriage was solemhized accbryin^ 1-5-1985. AsperpleadjngSoftheresponGlent,^ Doctor in District HospitarRaJpuraind aftermarri^ atSimgatill 1994. Justafter 2-3 moriths^^^ tKe appellanibecame abnbrmal. Shejs^^^^^ was reckless for herfamily. She used to^^q the last2Q years ^nd usedto address his.mother-m-l^ as "Bu(3he—Budhiya". Sh^ ysed to^^^ Three childrenweres born out of theirwedlock. 1^^^ respohderit namely Daya^i^was HI.W^ ''il'r/^::-'';'.'';:^:; ''':^;;'^^ treated her in his house. The resp gdministrating salihe. Jheappellan^ ^^.^:''^^'^''./-l.:..:;.1i^:^;.^ sisterandoustedherfrom^ leftthehoyseofth^respcmdentin 1999 alny since th|e l::. : •:Y.". ' '";.":'^,.''.—..:':'''''^;1.' .'^-.•; ' resjding sesparately. Even afferthedeat^o^ prNenf appellarit tia^^^^^ }.1;.'-::;-;'/ . ': ;'". : •^",' " • •'-: ^•. ••.:"••••••'••'•'•• membere. ^he hasalsofileathe p^ Shehasbrokehherbahgles^ndwip^dofPthe^rmili •i. , .' .''•••; ! .-•^: :^.^ ••.••..:...:. '; • :. , ,:: :..: •••• Respondenithasalsbpleadedthatfirstlyhewas^m !! after customarydivorcepi^vailingin^^ T',- •1 •.••.•.,.•"{ i. ,..'^;.. .•; .. '11 ;/;;'. ••:.1.;' 1 .;.1 .:... -•'.- with the ?presfenf app^Ilaht Oh th^ aforesai^ djssblutioh of marriage by a de^ ^respondent.'.:,£1'' ! .;':''"1 :1; ..•'.1'1,;'.^'''"1 ..'."1 -,:i;,l:l :. ^ 1'1, :, ?:'l;';.;lf;^^ :''i11'1' 3) On the other hand,;Rresjentappel|anjt/de^ made iri the petltion^^ a^ w ^ss ^^^^ sl!^f'^II^i%%JI%SIijill%i%?li^8S^i il:l';J B"K ^r-;} t6rture<j Qr^^l^^ jnsult^ herin-laws'anclpierlspCHideF^ Br|spbndenthjjrHsel^vel1;oJ|W TlTe^respondent sus^^^ ; j appellantfrom hisihou^^^^^^^ 1 1 appeNant^t lT^NaisjlW and he wanted to^rnari^ltba^girl.^ S assaultedhei^ri^^rciblytookt^ l'^;'';.- •':}'-:;:t.h ^ ; 4) 0^ ^^f;1-;^'^-/.-,'-.'-^;^^ i £inyai^ra|D||jhgan^o^ FarnilyCourthaSallow^thep^ haspassed thedecreefordjssblutionofnTiarri^^ •v'-":.:"-i-:-' . ;'<^.'^;;.-'l.::'.'.:.v! •/....1:.,. 5) V^ ha^ heard'Slfi K.K.S and Shri S|S.^^^ R^ judgmerit & decree ancl record of fhe Family Court. I 'i;'.1 ..'-',.•. -•^.1'-'..'11-,.1 ••^' .! ',': ^ 1 6) Learned^cQ^ the'res(|3>n^er^s|has^^n^^ j (^nfimitt^ dtss61ultK)h^maNageby^^^^ ^ On thegbth^hand^leaiFneetjcQyn^^ viel^mesntly opposed.th&.apReal^a^ proveclthe^crtum^fcmelty^l^ ahd afterconsidenngtall thecasRe^, t^ ^hesuit;":.'.-;'<';;'^y;:i1:,1-'.^ 8) Leame^^^ plaeectireHan^ inth^ma^o^^^^ ,l^%f ^ f^.^-^'.S ^l ^SiiSSiSSiiS^SiSS^ 11-11: 1^ ~4'l:i':' ;t ^. ^1:|M-'M^ ^^'] 11 J- H ^t^ in' i^poi1^ih^004{ll)MPii|^N^ of M.^hat^fa^l^ cryelty;^ l^am0d?cG)unsil^a&lfu|t:hSer^ SuHita^ \te. llt-iyi^Kum^ Ap^OourtKeldt^^lse^ill^tioh^^ amoyntstoim^fital^ruelty. made bythe parties ©) In or<J^^ ipai^eit'w^^hav^!:l'|xamil|^ ^Q:^iiy^'tiit^a®^^^ Ih Hindu Mamag^<rt, 195^ <?ru^l1yhaS Case to 6ase ahd cmelly may relate^^t^^^ uhinlentiorial. In ca^^ all^gation oraction which a^ He1d irrcase of Komal Sihg^^^^ 1alse allegation ^ cbnstitutes Inr^n^ siliamage-:tiyra,-<:lecree:of:^iwbrce.l':.':';. ^^.:'.;'.^'''/: ^:''<';.:-:-'.'^ .,1.0)^..''^ln^he^reseTi||ias^ l:'PVV^;^D|^iga|i^liii^ BhayeSomA^i, jj|e^ ^ D.R.: 'SbrN®nj,^D\A//S^S^ IN^ DO(^ K.^^ Sonwahi, DVy/7,^^^ Mahilang. T'he^dec^ 'f :^^;:/'.;,;/.., ;•....••::'^''. ^.•^,;',;^'^\,^''^;x^ ^aile91ed:;;:menfal;'eFUiltyt^|^^ lljudgmint'^ndi:de^reij'irniugneij|:|ie^!i^^ ,^.::;;:'.^,.::,^,,;::.:,,^^,,^;',.^ allegationupon^erliusl^i^l.^ illicitrelationwithori^astreBian^^ m-M:. ^ lilll^ •^' 11)Theappe|lanthascrosse)<aminedthe^^re^ 18 6f his cross examination, the appellaht tias suggested ttiat his first wife was having two issues through respondent arid also suggested that^^^o^^ pthergirlaborted at his instance which the respondent has denied^^ appellant in her evidehce has d^ resppndentwas keepihg t^wives namely U to tell pthers that they were his sisters, but they wer^ not his sisters and they were his keeps. Prior to his marriage orie girl nsimely Hastrekha was residing with Ihe respbndent to whom fhe respondenlt was trying to marry, butthatgirlcame'toknQwthattKeresporidehtwasha^ingillicitre^ number of girls, there^ deposed th^ the res^ namely Hemlata and ev^nal^rher marri^^ <>f r^spondeht1x)rabouta^^^^^ ^videncethat therespondenthimselfhasaclmittedthathe - relation with one nurse. In^^^^^^p^ that even after m Theappellanthassalsodeppsedthatttieirgsp^i^entqse^ sex. In para^of^herevidenceshe^a&fyrthep^ was having illicit relatibn atleast with 10—ll^^^g^ one girl namely Ku. Roshian frprn Simga. She has further deposed that jn the year 1999 the respondent has kept one nurse namely Sav^ Chandrakar and pne baby wa& born out of their illicit rete^^^ respondent has examined Docrtor D.R. Sonwani, but he has not deposed ahythingabouttheseillicitrelations.Theappellanthasspecificallypleaded and deposed indetaiiin herevidencethattherespondentwashavrngillicit relationwithmorethah10-11girlsarideyenheishavingoneillegN daughter. She has disclosed the names of some nurses and women y :t.: •M ^ iS^iilJiilSiiliiil®ilIlt^ilSi^ ISl!iSIISJfifilSSBIBIIIi31B^BBtt& ^;§fS^;il N^^lsK;;^;^^!iW HastrekKa, Hemlata, Umila, Pamila, Sinha, Roshan ami Savjtri Chandrakar, butthereas6r^bestkncwntoher,shehas^^h^ of the women or ariyfother^witne^to^ witness bas ever seen tlie resp^ ahy of the womeh. The allegation in the pleadihg and evidente js clear and u^ to illicit relation bf^^^^^^ ^ :.i;'^:':..:;'-;l;-<^.:."^.'^.u':l apjpellant has notjaddyced a^^ absericebtanyevklence^th&^^ .1- rtumbergfwomenissufficientfbrcohstitutihgmentalc^ \ 12) After appreciating the evidence ava^ilable^^^o .j:l; •."":1';:" ..•..'//".i '':,."":'"-:".'./...:1." Famify Court has decreed the suit fbr dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Theallegation madebytheappellant/wifeitself^^^^^ cmeltyandonthegroundofmentalcmeltyeorftmittedjb^^^^^ .respondehtis^ntitledfordissOlutiohbfmarriagebyadecreeofdivorce. •i ' , .::'/. •• • :• :. •'•'. . 1 .; : :'' • • 13) Forthe fbregoing reasons, we are of the view that the learned JuGlge FamilyCourthasnOteommittedanyillegalJtydrirregularityin^^d^ suitlbrdissQlutibnofiTiamageb^adecreieo^div^^ appealiswitlwutsubstanreandisliableto^ dismissed. Parties shall bear their own schedule. 14) Decree be drawn up accordingly. Raju Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge m .^'^.•-L ^ ;^"^^1^