Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 902 (JHR)

Radha Rani Dutta v. Mritunjay Dutta

2003-07-28

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD

body2003
ORDER 1. Admittedly, on 24th February 1998, the appellant was married with the respondent and out of their wedlock a female child was born on 18.9.1999. 2. The husband had filed Matrimonial Suit No. 71 of 1999 against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights on 15.6.1999, while the wife was pregnant. During pendency of the said suit, she gave birth to a female child on 18.9.1999. Thereafter on 1.10.1999 the husband filed a petition in the said Matrimonial Suit for its withdrawal, as he did not want to proceed with the said case. 3. On 22.3.2001, the husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 38 of 2001, under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against his wife for a decree of divorce. 4. As pleaded, the parents of the wife wanted him to live with them as ghar jamai, which was not acceptable to him, he being the only son of his parents. Unfortunately, only after a period of four months off the marriage, her parents forcibly took her without his consent to their house at Jamshedpur, due to which his conjugal life was seriously affected. 5. On 15.4.1999 the husband personally visited the parents house of his wife and requested them to send her back with him, whereupon he was threatened by various ways. Her parents used filthy languages against him and, ultimately, he was compelled to return alone. Thereafter the aforesaid suit for restitution of conjugal rights was filed and subsequently for the best reasons known to the husband that was withdrawn on 1.10.1999. 6. The husband claimed that he made several attempts to bring his wife to the matrimonial home, but she flatly refused, inspite of best efforts and attempts made, He further pleaded that his normal married life was rendered impracticable and impossible, resulting into dangerous physical and mental consequences. This compelled him to prefer the suit for dissolution of marriage and obtain a decree of divorce against his wife. 7. The wife appeared and contested the suit and denied the allegations and claimed that after four months of her marriage, the only motive of her husband and his parents was to get more cash dowry from her father by committing various kinds of mental cruelty to her. During the stage of her pregnancy, the husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 71 of 1999 and later withdrew the same. During the stage of her pregnancy, the husband filed Matrimonial Suit No. 71 of 1999 and later withdrew the same. She flatly denied to have threatened to commit suicide and the allegations against her parents were also devoid of any truth. As per the custom, Swad Anna ceremony is performed at the matrimonial home, which was attended by her parents on 10.9.1999 and she had also stayed there for four days, but thereafter when she came back to her parents house, neither her husband and nor any member of the family came to take her and her child back to the matrimonial home. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issue No. 3 "Is the applicant entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty ?" 9. Both the parties adduced evidence. The husband got himself examined as AW 1 and his father was examined as AW 2. On the other hand, the wife examined herself as RW 1. 10. By impugned Judgment and decree dated 13.8.2002, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, decreed the suit and the marriage solemnized between Mritunjay Dutta and Radha Rani Dutta on 24.2.1998 was dissolved by a decree of divorce. The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, has been filed by Radha Rani Dutta, the wife. 11. In this Appeal, we have considered whether the husband was able to prove that he was entitled to get a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty and the impugned Judgment passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court Jamshedpur was legal and justified. 12. It is well settled that cruelty has to be of the type which should satisfy the conscience of the Court to believe that relation between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent, due to one of the spouses that it has become impossible to live together with the mental agony, torture or distress. If conduct of the party was not result of any intention to harm or injure, but of pure selfishness and indifference, the said party cannot be said to be guilty of cruelty. Therefore, it has to be ascertained as to whether the acts and the conduct, if any, of the wife constituted cruelty and for that reason the husband was entitled to obtain a decree of divorce. 13. Therefore, it has to be ascertained as to whether the acts and the conduct, if any, of the wife constituted cruelty and for that reason the husband was entitled to obtain a decree of divorce. 13. The husband alleged that his wife wanted him to live as ghar jamai, with her parents, which he refused and thereafter she left her matrimonial home and is living permanently with her parents and inspite of his best efforts, she did not come to live with him and for that reason he wanted a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. 14. A perusal of deposition of AW 1 reveals that his wife did not come back to her matrimonial home to live with him because he refused to live with her parents at Jamshedpur as ghar jamai, According to him she left her matrimonial home on 1.4.1999 with her parents as she was not willing to live in a village in kuccha, house. 15. It appears that when on 14.1.1999, the husband fell ill and was got admitted in Tata Main Hospital by his wife and before giving birth to the female child in September, 1999, she had also attended the Swad Anna ceremony at her matrimonial home. 16. It was admitted by the husband that he had visited her in- laws house till 1.3.2000. AW 2 admitted that his daughter-in-law used to look after him and his wife and she used to tell his son to live with her parents as ghar jamai,. She was not ready to live with his son at matrimonial home. His son filed the suit for divorce. 17. The applicant-respondent herein failed to examine any independent witness to corroborate his statement that his wife wanted him to live as ghar jamai, with her parents, when it was flatly denied by the wife in her deposition and she stated that she was always ready and willing to live with her husband. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any material to show any thing in the conduct of the wife or her particular act, which constituted cruelty of such a character that it had become impossible for them to live together as husband and wife. 19. 18. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any material to show any thing in the conduct of the wife or her particular act, which constituted cruelty of such a character that it had become impossible for them to live together as husband and wife. 19. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the applicant- respondent herein failed to prove that on account of cruelty on the part of his wife, he was entitled to a decree of divorce. 20. We, therefore, set aside the impugned Judgment and decree and dismiss the suit. 21. In the result, this Appeal is allowed, but without costs.