Madhya Pradesh High Court
FA/151/2005 of MANGLA BAI Vs OMPRAKASH on 1 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLAON THE 1[st] OF FEBRUARY, 2024FIRST APPEAL No. 151 of 2005
BETWEEN:-
MANGLA BAI W/O OMPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 30YEARS OCCUPATION - NIL, R/O SILAWAD TEHSIL ANDDISTT.- BARWANI (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI B. S. GANDHI - ADVOCATE)
.....APPELLANT
AND
OMPRAKASH S/O BABULAL JI TELI, AGED ABOUT 35YEARS, R/O SINGHANA, TEHSIL - MANAWAR ,DISTRICT- DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
This appeal coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice VijayKumar Shukla passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present appeal is filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act,being aggrieved by judgment dated 7.2.2005 passed by Additional DistrictJudge, Manawar, district - Dhar in H.M Case No.3-A of 2002 whereby thepetition for dissolution of marriage filed by the respondent was partly allowed.2. The respondent filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty by the appellant. It is stated that one night when the respondent was sleeping he got thesmell of something burning. Upon getting up he saw that the appellant set fireon the blanket and was sitting on it. Thereafter, he shouted for help and tried toextinguish fire. The appellant was shouting that she wants divorce. Prior to thatalso the appellant had lodged false report in the police against the respondent.The trial Court after appreciating the evidence of the respondent and thewitnesses, found that the respondent was being subjected to physical andmental cruelty by the appellant by filing false cases and also making an attemptto murder him. The independent witnesses PW 2 - Bhagwan, PW - 3, Goma,PW - 4, Kailashchandra, PW - 5, Radheshyam have supported the testimonyof the respondent. Despite decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour ofthe respondent, the appellant did not agree to stay with him.
3. In the previous case filed by the appellant, the Court has recorded thefinding that the appellant is subjecting the respondent with cruelty. Thus, we donot find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Appellate Courtwhich is based on proper appreciation of acts and evidence. Even otherwise, itis not disputed that the appellant is living separately since 1998 and, therefore,no purpose would be served in setting aside the decree of divorce.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
PK
(RAVI MALIMATH)CHIEF JUSTICE
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE