LAWS(MPH)-2014-4-120

RANJIT SINGH Vs. SUGAN BAI

Decided On April 29, 2014
RANJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
SUGAN BAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act calling in question tenability of a judgment and decree dated 28.10.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ashta, District Sehore in Civil Suit Hindu Marriage No. 44 -A/97 whereby an application filed by the appellant husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage. Act has been dismissed. Parties herein belongs to a particular caste and it is said that they were married according to their caste sometime about 15 years back prior to institution of the present proceeding in the year 1997.

(2.) IT was the case of the appellant husband before the Trial Court that after his marriage the respondent is not treating him properly, does not give to him the right of cohabitation available to a husband, she acts cruelly to him, even though three children have born out of their wedlock but they have died and as he has to go out in connection with his work, the respondent wife refused to stay with him and went to her parents house. It is said that when he went to call her to come back, she refused and therefore, as per religious system applicable in the community a Panchayat of the community Members were called on 4.3.1990 wherein the panchayat permitted the parties to live separately and all the belongings to each other were exchanged and respondent wife paid a sum of Rs. 3,300/ - to the appellant. It is said that in fact this agreement by the Panchayat on 4.3.90 is dissolution of marriage as per customs prevailing between the party. On the ground of desertion, dissolution of marriage by the Panchayat and cruelty in not permitting the husband to cohabitate the suit was filed. However, the learned Court below having dismissed suit on the ground that same is not proved, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent refuted the aforesaid and argued that finding has been recorded in accordance with law and same does not call for any interference.