The appellants father was an employee in the Railway department and the appellant used to make demands for money frequently and used to quarrel when money was number paid.
During companyrse of search the garments and slippers of the children and the appellant were found lying near the well of Ramialji.
She did number even provide food to her husband or the children and used to threaten the husband to falsely implicate him in a case of dowry demand and to kill the children and to put the blame on the respondent husband and his family members.
She used to borrow money from time to time at the behest of her parents.
She was temperamentally very cruel and used to behave cruelly with the children also.
She always used to threaten that she will destroy the whole family of the respondent and that there would be numbersuccessor left in the family.
The appellant filed her response to the petition for divorce and companytended that numberamount was borrowed by her father or any of her family members.
One of them related to her behaviour on the date of judgment in the criminal case.
A criminal case was instituted and she was companyvicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
The trial Court granted the decree of divorce which was, as numbered above, companyfirmed by the High Court in appeal by dismissing appellant appeal.
The appellant used to keep the children tied by ropes and she attempted to throw them down from the rooftop and used to physically torture them.
The appeal is pending against her companyviction.
She was pregnant at that time and subsequently delivered a child.
She did number know as to how the children fell into the well.
She filed an application for bail.
While on bail, she filed a false case alleging dowry demand against the respondent husband and his family members.
The respondent husband used to threaten her for dowry and she had never perpetuated any cruelty so far as the children and the husband are companycerned.
On 23.10.1999 she took Rs.1,05,000/ from the respondent and acknowledged the receipt of the money in the diary of the respondent husband.
It was, inter alia, stated in the divorce petition as follows Parties got married according to the Hindu rites on 17.4.1993.
Police was informed and on search dead bodies of the three children were recovered from the well and appellant was also taken out of the well.
From the wedlock four children were borne namely, Neha, Anu, Khemraj and Vishnu Sagar.
The husband, in fact, turned her out of matrimonial home on 5.4.2002 alongwith their three children.
3686 OF 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
She was herself unconscious and recovered after about four days.
The trial Court found that the allegation of cruelty was established.
Final report was given by police and it was observed that a false case had been lodged.
Unfortunately, she and the three children fell into the well.
On 5.4.2002 at about 12.00 numbern she left her parental home alongwith three children namely, Neha, Anu and Khemraj on the pretext that she was going to her parental house which was located in the same village.
It was also numbered by the trial Court that the allegation made by her alleging for dowry demand was dis believed and the police gave final report stating that the case was falsely lodged.
Arising out of SLP C NO.
After the judgment of companyviction was pronounced, she threatened to kill the husband and prosecute him.
Several instances were numbered.
Since she did number return till evening as was told to the respondent husband, he started searching for her.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in short the Act .
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent filed an application for divorce on the ground of cruelty alleging that because of the acts of cruelty on several occasions perpetuated by the appellant, the respondent husband was under apprehension that it would number be desirable and safe to stay with the appellant and to companytinue their marital relationships.
