Jagbir Sharma Vs. Babli
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 995 of 1997
Petitioner: Jagbir Sharma
Respondent: Babli
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 995 of 1997
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 22, 2001
Head Note:
HINDU MARRIAGE/PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 13(1) (i-a) – Divorce – Ground of cruelty – Petition by husband – High Court setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissing petition without considering the evidence objectively. Held that judgment is set aside and matter remitted for fresh decision. (Para 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The parties are related to each other as husband and wife. The husband has filed this appeal by special leave assailing the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal No. 854 of 1995 in which the Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the family court, Meerut in Suit No. 1263 of 1989 and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the suit the plaintiff-husband prayed for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of the defendant-wife.
3. The gist of the case pleaded by the plaintiff was that after the marriage the defendant wanted the plaintiff to leave the home of his parents at Meerut and come to Delhi where her parents live. This suggestion was not accepted by the plaintiff. Three children (sons) were born out of the wedlock. The defendant persistently neglected and harassed not only the plaintiff but the children also. She went to the extent of assaulting him on some occasions.
4. The defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. She alleged that the plaintiff and his parents had been ill-treating and harassing her and finally she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. Under such compelling circumstances, she was forced to stay with her parents.
5. Since we propose to remand the case to the High Court for fresh disposal, we do not feel it necessary to discuss in detail the case of the parties on merits. Suffice it to state that on a plain reading of the judgment of the High Court, it is clear that the Court while deciding the first appeal neither considered the evidence led by the parties objectively nor has discussed the reasons stated in the trial court judgment for accepting the case of the appellant. The High Court appears to have proceeded on the assumption that a mother can never be cruel towards her children. The appeal has been disposed of on some general discussions without considering the case of the parties on merits. We are unable to commend the manner in which the first appeal has been disposed of. We have avoided delving further into the merits of the case pleaded by the parties lest it should affect any of them when the decree is reconsidered by the High Court.
6. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court under challenge, set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeal in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Since the matter has been pending since long, the High Court is requested to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The parties are related to each other as husband and wife. The husband has filed this appeal by special leave assailing the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal No. 854 of 1995 in which the Court reversed the judgment and decree passed by the family court, Meerut in Suit No. 1263 of 1989 and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the suit the plaintiff-husband prayed for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty on the part of the defendant-wife.
3. The gist of the case pleaded by the plaintiff was that after the marriage the defendant wanted the plaintiff to leave the home of his parents at Meerut and come to Delhi where her parents live. This suggestion was not accepted by the plaintiff. Three children (sons) were born out of the wedlock. The defendant persistently neglected and harassed not only the plaintiff but the children also. She went to the extent of assaulting him on some occasions.
4. The defendant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. She alleged that the plaintiff and his parents had been ill-treating and harassing her and finally she was thrown out of the matrimonial home. Under such compelling circumstances, she was forced to stay with her parents.
5. Since we propose to remand the case to the High Court for fresh disposal, we do not feel it necessary to discuss in detail the case of the parties on merits. Suffice it to state that on a plain reading of the judgment of the High Court, it is clear that the Court while deciding the first appeal neither considered the evidence led by the parties objectively nor has discussed the reasons stated in the trial court judgment for accepting the case of the appellant. The High Court appears to have proceeded on the assumption that a mother can never be cruel towards her children. The appeal has been disposed of on some general discussions without considering the case of the parties on merits. We are unable to commend the manner in which the first appeal has been disposed of. We have avoided delving further into the merits of the case pleaded by the parties lest it should affect any of them when the decree is reconsidered by the High Court.
6. The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court under challenge, set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for fresh disposal of the appeal in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Since the matter has been pending since long, the High Court is requested to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
