ALOPBAI Vs. RAMPHAL KUNJILAL
LAWS(MPH)-1961-10-8
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on
October 24,1961
ALOPBAI, RAMPHAL
Appellant
VERSUS
RAMPHAL KUNJILAL
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAM KALI VS. SAME SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1968-12-14] [REFERRED TO]SHANTI DEVI VS. BALBIR SINGH GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-1971-2-10] [REFERRED]
INDERJIT KAUR VS. RAJINDER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-1980-4-43] [REFERRED 3.]
BABURAO VS. SUSHILA BAI [LAWS(MPH)-1962-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
SUNEETA VS. RISHAB KUMAR JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-1991-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINER SINGH VS. PUSHPA [LAWS(P&H)-1968-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
CAPTAIN CHAND NARAIN GAUTAM VS. SAROJ GAUTAM [LAWS(RAJ)-1974-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
PARIHAR PRITI VS. PARIHAR KAILASH SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1978-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
ATMARAM VS. NARBADA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-1979-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
ARAJ KUMAR JAIN VS. VIMLA DEVI JAIN [LAWS(MPH)-1982-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THIS is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Tare J. upholding the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Narsimhapur, giving to the respondent Ramphal a decree for restitution of conjugal rights.
(2.)THE plaintiff's case was that he was married to the appellant Alopbai on 13th march 1950; that after the consummation of marriage the tried to bring the appellant (No. 1) to his house but respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and appellant No. 2, who were close relatives of Alopbai and with whom she was staying, did not allow alophai to come and live with him; that on 24th May 1956 while Alopbai was on her way to the house of Todalsingh (appellant No. 2) he (the plaintiff) met her and persuaded her to come and live with him; that accordingly she came to his house and lived with him for 26, days; that thereafter Todalsingh (appellant no. 2) and gomitibai (respondent No. 2), her mother, took her away from his house after instituting criminal proceedings; and that since then they were preventing Alopbai from coming to his house. Alopbai (appellant No. 1) resisted the suit by pleading that the marriage had not been consummated and that the plaintiff had ill-treated her. She prayed that the marriage he declared a nullity or that she be given a decree for judicial separation.
(3.)THE trial Judge decree the suit ex parte against Alopbai. He found that the marriage had been consummated and that the appellant (No. 1) had not led any evidence to support the allegations of cruelty and ill-treatment. As appellant No. 1 did not adduce any evidence the trial Judge accepted mechanically the plaintiff's statement that he had not ill-treated appellant No. 1. After making an unsuccessful effort for setting aside the ex parte decree, the appellants preferred an appeal in this court. The learned single Judge saw no ground for setting aside the ex parte decree. He came to the conclusion that as the appellants failed to appear and tender any evidence the decree passed by the learned trial Judge could not be set aside on any ground whatsoever'.
(2.)THE plaintiff's case was that he was married to the appellant Alopbai on 13th march 1950; that after the consummation of marriage the tried to bring the appellant (No. 1) to his house but respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and appellant No. 2, who were close relatives of Alopbai and with whom she was staying, did not allow alophai to come and live with him; that on 24th May 1956 while Alopbai was on her way to the house of Todalsingh (appellant No. 2) he (the plaintiff) met her and persuaded her to come and live with him; that accordingly she came to his house and lived with him for 26, days; that thereafter Todalsingh (appellant no. 2) and gomitibai (respondent No. 2), her mother, took her away from his house after instituting criminal proceedings; and that since then they were preventing Alopbai from coming to his house. Alopbai (appellant No. 1) resisted the suit by pleading that the marriage had not been consummated and that the plaintiff had ill-treated her. She prayed that the marriage he declared a nullity or that she be given a decree for judicial separation.
(3.)THE trial Judge decree the suit ex parte against Alopbai. He found that the marriage had been consummated and that the appellant (No. 1) had not led any evidence to support the allegations of cruelty and ill-treatment. As appellant No. 1 did not adduce any evidence the trial Judge accepted mechanically the plaintiff's statement that he had not ill-treated appellant No. 1. After making an unsuccessful effort for setting aside the ex parte decree, the appellants preferred an appeal in this court. The learned single Judge saw no ground for setting aside the ex parte decree. He came to the conclusion that as the appellants failed to appear and tender any evidence the decree passed by the learned trial Judge could not be set aside on any ground whatsoever'.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.