Mithlesh vs Gopal Singh

S.S. Saron, J.—This appeal has been filed by Mithlesh @ Mitesh-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, whereby the petition filed by the respondent-husband u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ''the Act'') seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been allowed.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at village Basai, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Rajasthan) on 20.04.1996. After marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife at village Naichana, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari. They co-habited together for one year and thereafter, the appellant went to her parental house. The respondent-husband waited for her return for about a fortnight and when she did not return then he along with Mahipal son of Ram Singh, Roshan Singh son of Mohar Singh and Ramesh Singh son of Udey Singh went to village Basai as mediators. However, the appellant and her family members insulted them; besides, threatened them that the respondent and his family members would face problems. Again Naurang son of Jag Ram and Rattan Singh son of Sheo Nath Singh went to village Basai to settle the matter. However, the appellant and her family members again threatened them. The respondent husband then filed a petition u/s 9 of the Act against the appellant. The parties then filed an application on 07.01.2000 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rewari for permission to file a joint petition u/s 13-B of the Act. In view of the filing of the said application, the petition u/s 9 of the Act that was earlier filed was dismissed on 15.03.2001 as having been rendered infructuous. However, later, the appellant wife refused to file a joint petition u/s 13-B of the Act. Therefore, the respondent filed the petition, out of which this appeal arises, seeking dissolution of the marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

The appellant in her reply denied the allegations made by the respondent-husband. It was stated that she was turned out from her matrimonial home by the respondent saying that he did not want to keep her as his wife and he would obtain divorce. Besides, it was also pleaded by her that in case she was again sent to her matrimonial home, the respondent may again beat her and he may even kill her. In view of the threats that were held out by respondent-husband, the life of the appellant was not safe. The appellant also prayed that she may be granted a decree of divorce as respondent-husband does not want to keep her as his wife.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

(1) Whether the respondent (now appellant) has treated the petitioner (now respondent) with cruelty and the marriage deserves to be dissolved? OPP.

(2) Whether the respondent (now appellant) has deserted the petitioner (now respondent) without any reasonable cause? OPP.

(3) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR.

(4) Relief.

The learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, on the basis of evidence and material on record decreed the petition of the respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty as well as desertion. Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

The appellant-wife aggrieved against the same has filed the present appeal. The appeal was admitted on 25.08.2003. Thereafter, it was referred to the Counselling Centre of the Lok Adalat but no effective proceedings could take place.

In terms of order dated 31.01.2006 passed by this Court, it was directed that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance pendente-lite shall be payable by the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife. The maintenance amount it was ordered shall become payable w.e.f. 01.06.2006. Besides, litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/- was ordered to be paid by the respondent-husband to the appellant-wife. The matter was again referred to Counselling Centre in this Court, however, nothing fruitful came out.

The case taken up on 03.09.2013, Mr. Ram Darshan Singh, Advocate, Mr. J.S. Malik, Advocate for the appellant besides Ms. Sushma Singh, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate for the respondent were asked to be informed of the date fixed. The case was adjourned to 24.10.2013. On the said date, Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant but none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Ms. Sushma Singh and Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocates were ordered to be informed of the next date. The case was adjourned to 14.11.2013. On the said date, Mr. S.K. Yadav Advocate for Mr. Ram Darshan, Advocate, appeared for the appellant but none appeared on behalf of the respondent. As per office report, the previous letters dated 24.10.2013, issued to both the counsel viz. Ms. Sushma Singh and Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocates had been received back duly served. Despite intimation to learned counsel for the respondent, none appeared for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant prayed for time stating that Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate, had gone out of station to attend the marriage of his cousin. The case was adjourned to 12.12.2013. An intimation was ordered to sent to the respondent for the adjourned date by ordinary post. The case was adjourned to 12.12.2013. Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant, appeared on 12.12.2013. As per office report, letter issued to counsel for the respondent had not been received back served or otherwise, however, the previous letter issued for 24.10.2013 to both the counsel had been received back duly served. It was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that Sh. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate was representing the respondent in COCP No. 2211 of 2009 which was also listed for hearing with the present appeal. Notice issued to the respondent for 12.12.2013 had not been received back served or otherwise. In the circumstances, fresh notice to the respondent and notice to Sh. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, were ordered to be issued for 13.02.2014. On the said date i.e. 13.02.2014, as per office report, fresh notice issued to the respondent as well as letter issued to his counsel i.e. Shri Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, had not been received back either served or otherwise. However, learned counsel for the respondent had been informed telephonically about the date fixed. Despite intimation, counsel for the respondent did not appear. Learned counsel for the appellant also did not appear. Fresh notice was ordered to be issued to the counsel for the respondent for 24.04.2014. On 24.04.2014, as per office report, it was submitted that fresh notice issued to respondent-Gopal Singh had been received back duly served. Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant was appearing in this case. However, on the previous dates i.e. 13.02.2014 and on 24.04.2014 also none had appeared. In the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 15.05.2014. On 15.05.2014, the case was not listed. The case is shown for today at serial No. 324 on the Regular Board and the names of the Advocates namely Mr. Ram Darshan Singh, Advocate, Mr. J.S. Malik, Advocate, Ms. Sushma Singh, Advocate and Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate are shown, however, none is present on behalf of either of the parties. Therefore, it appears that the parties are not interested in pursuing the case. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed in default in terms of order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.