IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

First Appeal No. 139 of 1991

Decided On: 01.05.1992

In the matter of

Smt. Indira Gangele ……………………………………(APPELLANT)

Vs.

Shailendra Kumar Gangele …………………………..(RESPONDENT)

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF APPELLANT

VIPUL KHANDELWAL

A-16
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acts Referred

Books Referred

Website Referred

Table of Abbreviations

Statement of Jurisdiction

Statement of Facts

Arguments Advance

Prayer Clause
ACTS REFERRED
 HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

BOOKS REFERRED
 BARE ACT- HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ,1955
 HINDU LAW-R.K. AGGARWAL
 FAMILY LAW-DR.PARAS DIWAN

WEBSITES REFERRED
 Indiankanoon.com
 Manupatra.com
TABLE OF ABBREVIATION

1 ART. Article

2 S. Section

3 HMA Hindu Marriage Act

4 Hon’ble Honourable

5 SC Supreme court

6 HC High court

7 u/s Under Section

8 Ors. Others

9 Vs. Versus
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondent in this case have appealed to High Court under the section 28(1)
of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955

Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 provides that:

All decrees made by the court in any proceeding under this act shall, subject to
the provision of sub-section (3), be appealable as decrees of the court made in
the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, and every such appeal shall lie to the
court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the court given in the
exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) The husband is the respondent before us. The appellant is his wife. There
appears to be no dispute that the parties were married on 29-1-1984 in
accordance with Hindu Law and thereafter lived at Raipur and Satna for some
time. The respondent/husband in his application before the trial Court
submitted that after their marriage on 29-1-1984, the parties lived at Satna for
few days. Both of them thereafter went to Raipur together, where the
appellant was left alone for some time with the respondent's parents. The
parties again went on holiday to Puri. Thereafter, 15-02-2018 the appellant
went back to her parents' home at Faizabad and did not return either to
Raipur or Satna to live with the respondent. It was also submitted that the
respondent's sister was to be married on 9-4-1984 and, therefore, he
requested the appellant to come to Raipur to join him in the marriage, but she
did not do so.

2) It was further alleged that on 19-7-1984, the respondent, in the company of

his mother and grandmother, went to the appellant's house to bring her back
to Satna. She accompanied him to Satna, after a great deal of persuasion.
After staying about 12 days at Satna, she went back to her parents on the
pretext that her brother was coming from U.S.A. She had thereafter never
returned. The respondent wrote several letters to the appellant wife to
persuade her to come back but without any effect. Thereafter, the appellant
wrote a letter on 29-10-1984 and accused respondent's mother and
grandmother of hatching a conspiracy to burn her alive. Since the appellant
had designated respondent's mother and grandmother as devil incarnate by
making false allegation, she was accused of cruelty. Since she had refused to
come back to Satna to live with him, the appellant was also accused of
desertion.
3) The appellant, in her written statement, admitted that she was married and
lived at Satna and Raipur, but denied that she had done anything, which may
amount to cruelty. She, on the contrary, alleged that she had been ill-treated
by the mother-in-law and grand-mother-in-law, on her first visit to Raipur,
because she had not brought enough dowry. She offered to come back
unconditionally and live with the respondent. The learned District Judge, on
consideration of evidence adduced by the parties, held that the appellant was
guilty of cruelty and also desertion and, therefore, passed the impugned
judgment and decree.
ISSUES RAISED
1) Whether the allegations made by the wife towards the husband’s mother and
grandmother on grounds of cruelty and desertion are false or not?

2) Whether the allegations made by wife towards respondent’s mother-in-law

and grand-mother-in-law on grounds of dowry are false or not?
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1) The appellant was left alone for some time with the respondent's parents.
The appellant wrote a letter on 29-10-1984 and accused respondent's
mother and grandmother of hatching a conspiracy to burn her alive.

2) The appellant has stated that the sister of the respondent was to be
married immediately thereafter and, therefore, she was being asked to
bring Rs. 10,000/- . On the contrary, alleged that she had been ill-treated by
the mother-in-law and grand-mother-in-law, on her first visit to Raipur,
because she had not brought enough dowry. She offered to come back
unconditionally and live with the respondent.
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
counsel for the Appellant humbly prays before the Hon’ble Court Supreme
Court of India, New Delhi to adjudge and declare-

1. To declare that, the act of respondent does amount to cruelty &

desertion.
2. To declare that, the act of respondent of her in laws does amount to
dowry.

The court may pass any order as it may deem fit in the interest of Justice,
Equality and Good Conscience.

Respectfully Submitted
Place – MADHYA PRADESH
Date- 01.05.1992