1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO._______/2024

APPELLANT:
Geeta D/o Shri Manchharam, W/o Ramesh Kumar,
Aged about __ years, R/o Mundara, Tehsil Bali
District Pali, At present resident of Infront
of Police Station Chhanwani Street, Sheoganj,
Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi.

VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Ganeshilal, R/o
Mundawara, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.

:::
D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION
28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT READ WITH
SECTION 19 OF FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2024
PASSED BY SHRI SURENDRA SINGH SANDOO,
(DISTRICT JUDGE CADRE), LEARNED JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, SIROHI IN CIVIL MISC.
CASE NO.34/2021 WHEREBY THE APPLICATION
OF APPELLANT FILED UNDER SECTION 13 OF
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 HAS BEEN
ALLOWED.

:::
Fixed court fees paid : Rs. 20/-
:::
To,
 2

Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his Other

Companion Judges of the Rajasthan High
Court, Jodhpur.

:::
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS;

The brief facts giving rise to present

appeal are as under:

1. That brief facts of the care are that

respondent himself filed an application

Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 (hereinafter to be described as the

Act of 1955) inter-alia stating that his

marriage was consumed with appellant Geeta

D/o Manchharam in Hindu reties on

15.02.2002. Since dowry was not prevalent

in the society of the respondent and

appellant, the marriage ceremony was

performed according to social customs

without giving dowry. After marriage the

appellant came to her in-laws’ house in

Muddara to spend her married life and they

started leading their married life. Due to

love and affection, two daughters

Meenakshi, aged 16 years and Ishika Aged 09

were born from the wedlock of appellant

 3

Geeta. It is further stated that after

marriage the behaviour of appellant was not

good with appellant and his old mother

Phulidevi and father Ganeshiram and refused

to cook food for them and did not do

household chores due to which there used to

be fights over small matters everyday in

the house due to which there started to be

estrangement and ideological differences

between the appellant and the respondent.

Appellant has also made allegation his

parents are old and they have no source of

income and she used to demand money for

expenses of her and their daughters and

also stated that at the time of marriage of

appellant’s brother Kamlesh, appellant and

her mother demanded Rs.50,000/- from

respondent at Chhavni. Respondent has

further stated that when he used to go to

Mumbai for business, the appellant used to

go to her parental house without informing

anyone. He does not have any shop of his

own in Mumbai(Maharashtra). Since his

brother Bharat’s shop was in Virar West, he

used to stay there to learn work. The

 4

respondent had brought appellant alongwith

children to Mumbai. Respondent made

allegations against appellant about

misbehave, threatening, cruelty and she

left in law house. The appellant came from

Mumbai on Christmas 2013 and since then

till date, without any reason she has been

depriving the respondent from matrimonial

life.

2. That the respondent has stated he used to

come to Mundara from Mumbai to meet the

appellant but she did not meet him.

However, respondent has submitted undated

an agreement written by dissolving the

marriage on stamp of Rs.100/- dated

04.01.2014 with the free consent of both of

them. The respondent has also stated that

appellant Geeta had lodged an FIR before

Police Station Sadari, District Pali under

Section 498A and 323 IPC and under Domestic

Violence Act being Criminal Misc. Case

No.52/2018 pending before learned Senior

Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Sheoganj. It is relevant to

mention here that in the said case the

 5

learned ACJM, Sheoganj had passed the order

of interim maintenance of Rs.4500/- per

month to appellant and her two daughters by

considering her an application u/s 125

Cr.P.C filed in the year 2017.

3. That to escape from his social liabilities

i.e. livelihood of appellant and her

daughters and also marriage of her two

daughters and had filed an application

Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act

on the basis of fake and frivolous

allegations. After serving of the notice,

the appellant appeared for contesting her

case and denied the facts of dowry and

stated that demanding dowry is a crime in

Prajapat Community or any other Community.

The appellant also physically tortured the

respondent from time to time when he

insisted on demanding dowry. For the

reason, a case under Sections 498A and 323

IPC was filed against him by the

respondent. After it was proved in the

investigation, a charge sheet has also been

presented against the respondent under

 6

sections 498A, 323 IPC in the court of

Judicial Magistrate, Sadri, and the same is

pending. During pendency of aforesaid

criminal case, a decree of divorce cannot

be given legally on the basis of cruelty

committed by the respondent. She has

further stated the respondent has submitted

undated an agreement written for dissolving

the marriage on stamp of Rs.100/- dated

04.01.2014 on fake and frivolous facts. The

said agreement is neither notarized nor

registered. The signature of appellant is

not match with her original signature.

There is no endorsement of the signature

for buying the stamp. The divorce agreement

has not been written with the consent of

the appellant, rather, she has been beaten,

threatened and intimated and made to sign

several papers. Thus, writing the divorce

agreement with consent is wrong and

unacceptable. The appellant had never

broken the lock of the house and gone out

with her female friend unauthorizedly.

The appellant had not been misbehaved with

her father-in-law and mother-in-law;

 7

neither has the appellant ever beaten her

father-in-law and mother-in-law. The

respondent himself had given the said house

to appellant for living and she is living

there peacefully with her daughter. The

respondent was intentionally deserted to

appellant without any rhyme and reason. The

respondent did not stated that appellant

and her daughters filed an application

under Section 24 and 26 of Hindu Marriage

Act before Judge, Family Court, Sirohi

being case No.57/2021 (CIS No.21/2021) and

stated that the divorce petition has been

filed on wrong facts. She has no source of

income for livelihood and for education of

her daughters. The respondent has a cement

agency in village Mundara, for which he

earns two lakh. He has a flat in Virar,

Mumbai and he has ancestral property in

village Rani. The respondent has a house in

village Mundar and 30 bigha agricultural

land from which he earns monthly income of

Rs.50,000/-. She had filed an application

for interim maintenance four year ago. The

learned trial court passed the interim

 8

maintenance allowance of Rs.4500/- per

month but the respondent was not complying

with that order, inflation has doubled in

the last four years and her both daughters

are getting higher education for which a

lot of money has been spent on education as

well. The learned Judge, Family Court,

Sirohi after hearing both parties, allowed

the compensation application of appellant

and passed the order on 30.05.2022 and

granted compensation Rs.10,000/- (by

adjusting Rs.4500/-) per month from the

date of presentation of an application. She

has prayed to dismissed the divorce

petition of respondent with costs.

4. That on the basis of pleading of the

parties, the learned court below framed

issue on 10.08.2021 which is as under:-

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to get

a decree of divorce on the basis of the

reasons mentioned in the petition filed

by the applicant. Applicant.

2. Relief.
 9

On proving of the above issue from

appellant side he tendered affidavit of

himself as AW-1 and respondent side

respondent herself tendered affidavit as

NAW-1 and in her support Meenakshi Prajapat

was got examined as NAW-2.

5. That on the basis of the said issue, the

learned Judge, Family Court decided the

issue against the appellant on the basis of

Exhibit-1 mutual consent deed for divorce

and the behaviour of appellant with

respondent remained cruelty. Only this

ground the learned Judge, Family Court

given perverse finding against appellant.

6. That on the basis of these findings, the

learned Judge Family Court, Sirohi has

accepted the application of respondent

filed under section 13 of H.M. Act and

passed the order of decree of divorce

vide order dated 05.09.2024. Certified copy

of judgment dated 05.09.2024 is enclosed

herewith.

7. That being aggrieved with impugned ex-party

Judgment dated 05.09.2024 passed by Judge,

 10

Family Court, Sirohi, the appellant submits

this appeal on the following amongst other

Grounds:-

G R O U N D S

i) That the impugned order dated 05.09.2024

passed by learned Judge, Family Court,

Sirohi in Civil Misc. Case No.34/2021 is

latently and patently illegal, contrary to

law and contrary to the facts apparent on

record.

ii) That the finding given by the learned

Judge family court is contrary to the

evidence that appellant has herself

specifically stated that his husband was

not given good matrimonial relation to her

after marriage. He always torching and

mis-behaved with her and quarrel with her

and daughters. In various instant was

given by her which all proving came in the

capacity of physical and mental

quarrelling these incident were proved but

the learned Judge family court did not

consider all aspect and allowed the

application of the appellant by

 11

considering the ground of the divorce

application which is not proved from the

evidence of the respondent, hence the

impugned judgment is deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

iii) That the appellant in her application

filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for

claiming compensation amount so that she

could contest the matter. After marriage

two daughters were born and thereafter he

quarrelled with her because he escaping

her liabilities for livelihood of two

children and their higher education and

marriage. Her husband did not want to live

with appellant and made fake and frivolous

mutual consent agreement for divorce. A

bare perusal of Ex.1 it is clear that this

agreement has made by respondent in

wrongful manner. The said agreement is

neither certified nor notarized. In the

said agreement there is no any witness.

The signature of appellant is not match to

her original signature. It is clear that

Ex.1 has been prepared on false and

 12

frivolous facts. The stamp of Rs.100/- was

not purchased by appellant and there is no

signature of appellant on stamp as well as

in the vendor register but the learned

Judge, Family Court by considering the

facts, grounds and evidence of the

respondent allowing the divorce petition

of the respondent in wrongful way hence

the finding in this regard is bed in the

eye of law hence deserve to be quashed and

set aside.

iv) That after services of summons, on behalf

of appellant reply to the application was

filed. Thereafter, an application U/s 24

and 26 of H.M. Act for claiming

compensation and for expenditure amount

was filed. The learned Judge, Family

Court, Sirohi has allowed the same vide

order dated 30.05.2022 and stated that

appellant was getting compensation of

Rs.4500/- per month as per order passed by

learned trial court in Criminal Case

No.52/2018, therefore, an order of

compensation of Rs.10,000 (by adjusting

 13

Rs.4500/-) per month has been passed from

the date of filing of an application u/s

24 and 26 of H.M. Act i.e. 16.07.2021. The

learned Judge, Family Court, Sirohi

without considering its own order dated

30.05.2022 passed in Family Misc. Case

No.57/2021 and also and material as well

as evidence of the appellant, allowed the

divorce petition in wrongful manner,

hence, the impugned judgment dated

05.09.2024 is bad in the eye of law and

deserves to be quashed and set aside.

v) That the finding given by the learned

Judge family court is contrary to the

evidence that appellant has herself

specifically stated that her husband was

not given good matrimonial relation to her

after marriage. He always torching and

mis-behaved with her and quarrel with her

and her children. In various instant was

given by her which all proving came in the

capacity of physical and mental

quarrelling. Looking of misbehave of

respondent and not changing his behaviour,

 14

he lodged an FIR No.110, dated 01.07.2017

before Police Station Sadari, District

Pali for the offence under Section 323 and

498A IPC against respondent and his

parents. On the basis of Criminal Case

No.473/2017 State Vs Ramesh Kumar &

Others was registered before Civil Judge

and Judicial Magistrate, Sadari and in the

said matter charge sheet has been filed

against respondents and the same is

pending. Despite pendency of said criminal

case, the learned Judge family court

did not consider all aspect and allowed

the application of the respondent by

considering the ground that an agreement

Ex.1 has prepared by both the parties.

However, the learned Judge, Family Court,

Sirohi has failed to consider that there

is no authentication of said agreement

Ex.1 as the same has not registered

document. On the basis of fake facts and

signature it cannot be treated true

documents, therefore, the order impugned

deserves to be quashed and set aside.

 15

vi) That the appellant made request number of

times to the respondent not to act like

this and also to behave properly with her

but he did not mend his ways. He wants to

get second marriage therefore, the act and

conduct of the respondent has amounted

physical and mental cruelty to the

appellant and made the life of the

appellant a hell. Numbers of panchayat

were held between the family members and

relatives of both but he totally refused

to live at matrimonial home with the

appellant.

(vii) That the appellant has never thought

even in dreams that such a disaster will

happen in her life and she had not even a

single idea about the illegal designs of

the respondent and his family. The

appellant tried her level best to know the

reasons and tried to make understand the

respondent but to no avail.

(viii) That the appellant used to get in

touch with the respondent on the fond hope

that her unconditional love would make the

 16

respondent and his family change their

mind and behavior towards the appellant

and her two daughters and make them

correct themselves. However, the

respondent continued to behave

irrationally and shoed his anger in all

and refused to live with the appellant she

blocked the appellant from social media.

(ix) That the respondent was totally

unapproachable and this left the appellant

with a deep sense of anguish and mental

agony. The respondent did not show any

intention at all in consummating the

marriage. The respondent intentionally

evinced no interest of having physical

contact with the appellant. This has

caused great mental agony and torture to

the appellant when there was no fault on

her part. The act and conduct of the

respondent has amounted physical and

mental cruelty to the appellant and made

the life of the appellant a hell.

(x) That the leaned trial court only

considered the finding of respondent that

 17

cruelty was made by the appellant but the

facts of quarrelling and desertion on

behalf of respondent were not denied. Any

spouse remain with husband or wife nor

with father or mother of the husband but

the learned trial court passed the order

contrary to the provisions of Hindu

Marriage Act and given finding that he is

residing separately since 2013, it is not

a ground of desertion hence the finding of

learned trial court bed in the eye of law.

(xi) That as stated above, the appellant has

suffered a lot at the hands of respondent

who still has been advancing various

threats to the appellant and her children.

The appellant has lost all her hopes to

save her married life as the respondent

has crossed all the barriers of cruelties.

(xii) That in view of the aforesaid facts

and circumstances, it is no more possible

for the parties to keep the marital

ties/bonds alive. The marriage is

virtually broken. The respondent has

treated the appellant with utmost cruelty

 18

as the marriage between the parties was

never consummated due to the act and

conduct of the respondent. Thus, there is

a reasonable apprehension in the mind of

the appellant that it will be harmful for

her to life with the respondent anymore.

In this way, the appellant has been

treated with utmost mental cruelty and

harassment and is entitled to seek a

decree of divorce on this sole ground.

Hence, this petition.

xiii)That the other grounds shall be submitted

at the time of arguments.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, very humbly and

respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly

be accepted and allowed, the impugned judgment

dated 05.09.2024 passed by Judge, Family Court,

Sirohi in Civil Misc. Case No.34/2021 may

kindly be quashed and set aside and the

application of the respondent filed for divorce

under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage may

kindly be dismissed with costs.

 19

Any other relief(s) which in the facts

and circumstances of this case this Hon'ble

Court deems just, fit and proper in favour of

the appellant.

[RICHIN SURANA]
COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT

NOTES:-
1. That no such Appeal has previously been
filed in this matter on behalf of
appellants before this Hon'ble High Court.
2. P.F., Notices and extra copies shall be
furnished within time after order.
3. This appeal has been typed by private Steno
in my office.
4. That due to non-availability of pie-papers
readily, this appeal is being preferred on
these stout papers.
5. The appeal comes within jurisdiction of
Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur.

[RICHIN SURANA]
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
:::
 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

D.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO._____/2024

IN
D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO._______/2024

APPELLANT:
Geeta D/o Shri Manchharam, W/o Ramesh Kumar,
Aged about __ years, R/o Mundara, Tehsil Bali
District Pali, At present resident of Infront
of Police Station Chhanwani Street, Sheoganj,
Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi.

VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Ganeshilal, R/o

Mundawara, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.

:::
STAY PETITION UNDER ORDER 41
RULE 5 READ WITH SECTION 151 C.P.C.
:::

To,
Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his Other
Companion Judges, Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS;

The humble appellant most respectfully

begs to submit as under:

1. That the appellant has this day filed Civil

Misc. Appeal against the impugned judgment

 21

dated 05.09.2024 passed Judge, Family

Court, Sirohi in Civil Misc. Case

No.34/2021. The appeal is based on strong

and cogent ground hence there is very

likelihood of same being allowed.

2. That the balance of convenience is also

lies in her favour.

3. That if during pendency of appeal, the

status quo is maintained regarding the said

disputed land the appellant will suffer

irreparable loss and prima facie the case

is in the favour of the appellant.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this

stay petition may kindly be accepted and

allowed and meanwhile operation and effect of

the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2024 passed

Judge, Family Court, Sirohi in civil Misc. Case

No.34/2021 may kindly be stayed. Further, the

respondent may be restrained to solemnize

second marriage till decision of this appeal.

Any other relief/relief(s) which in the

facts and circumstances of this case this

 22

Hon'ble Court deems just, fit and proper in

favour of the appellant.

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.

NOTES:-
1. That no such Stay Application has
previously been filed in this matter on
behalf of appellant before this Hon'ble
High Court.

2. P.F., Notices and extra copies shall be

furnished within time after order.

3. This Stay Application has been typed by

private Steno in my office.

4. That due to non-availability of pie-papers

readily, this stay application is being
preferred on these stout papers.

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR
D.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY PETITION NO._____/2024
IN
D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO._______/2024
APPELLANT: RESPONDENT:
Geeta Vs. Ramesh Kumar
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF STAY PETITION
I, Geeta D/o Shri Manchharam, W/o Ramesh
Kumar, Aged about __ years, R/o Mundara, Tehsil
Bali District Pali, At present resident of
Infront of Police Station Chhanwani Street,
Sheoganj, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi, do
hereby swear in the name of God and state as
under:-
1. That I am appellant in this case and am
conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case.

2. That I am filing a civil Misc. Appeal

against the impugned judgment dated
05.09.2024. The stay application has been
drafted under my instructions, the contents
whereof have been read and explained to me
in Hindi and I have understood the same
para-wise.

3. That the factual submissions made in the

annexed stay application are true and
correct to my personal knowledge and legal
submissions are believe to be true and
correct on the basis of legal advice given
by my counsel.

VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named deponent, do hereby
swear in the name of God and verify that the
contents of paras 1 to 3 of my above affidavit
are true and correct to my knowledge' that no
part of it is false and nothing material has
been concealed. SO HELP ME GOD.
 24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

D.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO._____/2024

IN
D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO._______/2024

APPELLANT:
Geeta D/o Shri Manchharam, W/o Ramesh Kumar,
Aged about __ years, R/o Mundara, Tehsil Bali
District Pali, At present resident of Infront
of Police Station Chhanwani Street, Sheoganj,
Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi.

VERSUS
RESPONDENT:
Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Ganeshilal, R/o
Mundawara, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.
:::
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 24 AND 26 OF
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT;
:::

To,
Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his Other
Companion Judges, Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS;

The humble appellant most respectfully

begs to submit as under:

1. That the appellant has this day filed Civil

Misc. Appeal against the impugned judgment

dated 05.09.2024 passed Judge, Family Court,

 25

Sirohi in Civil Misc. Case No.34/2021. The

appeal is based on strong and cogent ground

hence there is very likelihood of same being

allowed.

2. That in the instance case, appellant had

filed an application U/s 24 and 26 of H.M.

Act for claiming compensation. The learned

Judge, Family Court, Sirohi has allowed the

same vide order dated 30.05.2022 and stated

that appellant was getting compensation of

Rs.4500/- per month as per order passed by

learned trial court in Criminal Case

No.52/2018, therefore, an order of granting

compensation of Rs.10,000(by adjusting

Rs.4500/-) per month has been passed from

the date of filing of an application u/s 24

and 26 of H.M. Act i.e. 16.07.2021. The

learned Judge, Family Court, Sirohi without

considering its own order dated 30.05.2022

passed in Family Misc. Case No.57/2021 and

passed the order dated 05.09.2024 and

allowed the divorce petition of respondent.

3. That the balance of convenience is also lies

in his favour.
 26

It is, therefore, very humbly and

respectfully prayed that this application may

kindly be accepted and allowed, the respondent

may be directed to pay the monthly compensation

amount of Rs.10,000/- per month pursuant to

order dated 30.05.2022 passed by Judge, Family

Court, Sirohi in Family Civil Misc. Case

No.57/2021.

Any other relief(s) which in the facts and

circumstances of this case this Hon'ble Court

deems just, fit and proper in favour of the

appellant.

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

NOTES:-
1. That no such D.B. Civil Misc. Application
has been filed in the above manner in this
Hon'ble Court.
2. That this has been typed by my private
steno in my office, who is not an employee
of this Hon'ble Court.
3. That notice, P.F., Summons will be filed
within a week of admission.
4. That the pie papers are not available hence
stout papers have been used.

Dated: COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

 27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR
D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO._____/2024
IN
D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO._______/2024
APPELLANT: RESPONDENT:
Geeta Vs. Ramesh Kumar
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION

I, Geeta D/o Shri Manchharam, W/o Ramesh

Kumar, Aged about __ years, R/o Mundara, Tehsil
Bali District Pali, At present resident of
Infront of Police Station Chhanwani Street,
Sheoganj, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi, do
hereby swear in the name of God and state as
under:-
1. That I am appellant in this case and am
conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case.

2. That the factual submissions made in the

annexed in the application are true and
correct to my personal knowledge and legal
submissions are believe to be true and
correct on the basis of legal advice given
by my counsel.

VERIFICATION:
I, the above-named deponent, do hereby
swear in the name of God and verify that the
contents of paras 1 & 2 of my above affidavit
are true and correct to my knowledge' that no
part of it is false and nothing material has
been concealed. SO HELP ME GOD.
 28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR
D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO._______/2024

APPELLANT: RESPONDENT:
Geeta Vs. Ramesh Kumar
I N D E X
-----------------------------------------------
S.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
-----------------------------------------------
1. Memo of Appeal

2. Stay Petition

3. Affidavit in support of
Stay Petition.

4. Certified Copy of
order dated 05.09.2024

5. Application u/s 24 & 26 of

Hindu Marriage Act.

6. Affidavit in support of
Application.
===============================================

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

 29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO._____/2024

IN
D.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO._______/2024
APPELLANT: RESPONDENT:
Geeta Vs.
Ramesh Kumar
SYNOPSIS
DATE PARTICULARS

Respondent filed a divorce petition

Under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage
Act against appellant.
Appellant has filed reply to the
petition .
After pleading of the parties, issues
were framed.
05.09.24 Learned Judge, Family Court allowed
the divorce application.
30.05.22 Appellant has also filed an
application u/s 24 & 26 of H.M. Act
with the prayed that respondent may
be directed to pay monthly
compensation pursuant to order passed
by Judge, Family Court, Sirohi.
Hence, this appeal against the order
dated 05.09.2024.

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.

30