Smt. Shanti Devi vs Raghav Prakash (AIR 1986 RAJ 13)

• TITLE: Smt. Shanti Devi vs Raghav Prakash
• CITATION: AIR1986RAJ13, 1985(1)WLN437
• NAME OF COURT: Rajasthan High Court
• JUDGES: Guman Mal Lodha, J.
• PARTIES: Petitioner – Smt. Shanti Devi  Respondent – Raghav Prakash

FACTS

1. The case of Smt. Shanti Devi vs Raghav Prakash involves a divorce petition filed by Raghav Prakash, the respondent-husband, against his wife, Smt. Shanti Devi.
2. The divorce petition was based on allegations of cruelty and desertion. The case involved a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, with a focus on the grounds for divorce and the circumstances surrounding the marital relationship.
3. The petitioner, Smt. Shanti Devi, faced allegations related to her illiteracy, smoking habits, and accusations of theft and abuse. The respondent, Raghav Prakash, contended that these allegations constituted cruelty and sought a divorce based on these grounds.
4. The case involved a detailed examination of the evidence and arguments related to the allegations of cruelty and desertion, as well as the impact of these factors on the marital relationship.
5. The court carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence.
6. The judgment involved a critical analysis of the allegations made in the divorce petition, particularly those related to the wife’s illiteracy and her alleged actions.
7. The court also addressed the issue of permanent alimony, modifying the amount to be paid by Raghav Prakash to Smt. Shanti Devi.
8. Ultimately, the court’s decision resulted in the granting of a divorce decree in favor of Raghav Prakash, the respondent husband.
9. The court upheld the decree of divorce granted by the trial court on the ground of cruelty, based on a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.
10. Additionally, the court modified the amount of permanent alimony to be paid by Raghav Prakash to Smt. Shanti Devi.
11. In summary, the case involved allegations of cruelty and desertion, a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, and a judgment resulting in the granting of a divorce decree in favor of the respondent husband, Raghav Prakash.

ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Is illiteracy a ground for divorce?
2. What are the grounds for divorce available to husband?

PETITIONERS ARGUMENTS

The petitioner, Smt. Shanti Devi, presented several arguments in the case. Initially, the allegations in the original divorce petition were limited to desertion, and cruelty was based because the wife was illiterate, smoked bidis, and was in the habit of committing thefts and abuse. The petitioner’s counsel, Shri S.M. Jain, pointed out that these allegations were insufficient to dissolve the marriage in Hindu society under the Act. It was argued that the issues were framed in April 1978, and many opportunities were afforded to the husband-respondent to lead evidence. The petitioner’s counsel also contended that the oral evidence provided by the relatives of the husband was of no importance and suffered from improbabilities. Additionally, it was argued that the plea of desertion and cruelty were inconsistent, and the allegation that the husband had some relation with another lady could not be termed as cruelty.

Furthermore, the petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the evidence provided by the respondent was cooked up and concocted. Shri Jain argued that even though there was some delay, it was liable to be condoned under Section 23 of the Act. The petitioner’s counsel also pointed out that the allegation that the husband had some relation with another lady could not be termed as cruelty, and no issue was framed on this aspect of the case. Additionally, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the allegations were general in nature and now specific species had been shown of the cruelty by amendment. The petitioner’s counsel also argued that the plea of desertion and cruelty were inconsistent, and the allegation that the husband had some relation with another lady could not be termed as cruelty.

In summary, the petitioner’s arguments primarily revolved around challenging the allegations of cruelty and desertion, emphasizing inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the respondent, and contesting the significance of the allegations made in the original divorce petition. The petitioner’s counsel sought to demonstrate that the evidence presented by the respondent was unreliable and that the allegations were insufficient to dissolve the marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS

The respondent, Raghav Prakash, presented several arguments in the case. The respondent’s counsel, Shri C.G. Sharma, contended that the marriage was a broken one and nothing could be done now given the serious cruelty of the wife. It was pointed out that earlier, an issue regarding the illicit relations of the respondent with another girl was framed but later deleted. The respondent’s counsel emphasized that a charge of infidelity of having an illicit relation with another lady after the marriage was a serious form of cruelty. It was argued that the allegations, even though introduced by amendment, could not be treated as concocted and false. Moreover, the respondent’s counsel highlighted that the trial court was correct in holding that some of the allegations were general in nature and now specific species had been shown of the cruelty by amendment.

Additionally, the respondent’s counsel argued that the evidence provided by the relatives of the husband was natural and competent, as held by the Supreme Court. The respondent’s counsel also contended that the evidence of the family members was the most natural and competent in matrimonial matters. Furthermore, the respondent’s counsel addressed the challenge made to the findings arrived at by the lower court in respect of cruelty, which was based on grounds other than illiteracy. It was argued that the trial court had rightly held that the allegations found to be proved were not there earlier and had been introduced by the amendment. The respondent’s counsel emphasized that the trial court’s conclusion was correct in this regard.

In summary, the respondent’s arguments primarily focused on establishing the seriousness of the cruelty alleged by the respondent, emphasizing the significance of the evidence provided by the family members, and addressing the challenge to the findings of the lower court regarding the grounds of cruelty. The respondent’s counsel sought to demonstrate that the evidence presented supported the allegations of cruelty and that the trial court’s conclusion was appropriate in this context.

JUDGEMENT

The judgment resulted in a decree of divorce being granted in favor of Raghav Prakash, the respondent husband. The court upheld the decree of divorce granted by the trial court on the ground of cruelty, thereby ruling in favor of Raghav Prakash. This decision was based on a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.

The court carefully considered the allegations and evidence related to the grounds for divorce, particularly the claims of cruelty. After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances, the court found that the allegations of cruelty against the wife, Smt. Shanti Devi, were substantiated and supported by the evidence presented during the proceedings. As a result, the court concluded that the respondent husband, Raghav Prakash, had proven the cruelty of the wife against him, justifying the granting of the divorce decree in his favor.

Furthermore, the court addressed the issue of permanent alimony, modifying the amount to be paid by Raghav Prakash to Smt. Shanti Devi. The court directed that the amount of maintenance and permanent alimony would be Rs. 350/- (Rupees three hundred fifty) per month from the date of the judgment. This adjustment in the amount of permanent alimony was a significant aspect of the court’s ruling, reflecting a balanced consideration of the financial implications and future prospects of the parties involved.

The judgment also involved a critical analysis of the allegations made in the divorce petition, particularly those related to the wife’s illiteracy and her alleged actions. The court carefully evaluated the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, emphasizing the need for a fair and thorough assessment of the circumstances. This comprehensive analysis contributed to the court’s decision to uphold the decree of divorce based on the grounds of cruelty.

In summary, the judgment in the case resulted in the granting of a divorce decree in favor of Raghav Prakash, the respondent husband. The court’s decision was based on a detailed examination of the evidence and arguments, ultimately concluding that the allegations of cruelty against the wife were substantiated. Additionally, the court modified the amount of permanent alimony to be paid by Raghav Prakash to Smt. Shanti Devi.

CONCLUSION

The judgment addressed various aspects of the divorce, including the grounds for divorce, the financial support to be provided to the wife, and the allegations made by both parties. It discussed the importance of considering various facets of the case before granting a divorce and emphasized the responsibility of the courts in matrimonial matters. The judgment also touched on the societal implications of divorce and the challenges faced by divorced individuals, particularly women. Additionally, it addresses specific incidents and allegations presented as evidence in the case.

The judgment begins by highlighting the significance of granting a divorce in Hindu society, emphasizing that it is not a matter of routine but an exception. It underscores the heavy responsibility that lies on the courts to seriously consider various facets of the case and explore possibilities and alternatives before deciding the fate of the spouses. This sets the tone for the judgment, indicating the gravity of the decision to grant a divorce.

REFERENCES

“Smt. Shanti Devi v. Raghav Prakash., Rajasthan High Court, Judgment, Law, Casemine.Com” (https://www.casemine.com) https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609a3c1e4b01497113f4e37#

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110382/