Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1350 (PAT)

Arundhati Dutta v. Pinaki Ranjan Dutta

2013-11-29

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, NAVIN SINHA

body2013
JUDGMENT : NAVIN SINHA, J.:–The present appeal arises from judgment and order dated 24.09.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, in Matrimonial Case no. 705 of 2009. The appellant had sought divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) on grounds of cruelty which compelled her to leave the matrimonial home. The claim has been dismissed. 2. Earlier the respondent had filed Matrimonial Case No. 396 of 2009 for restitution of conjugal rights. By judgment and order dated 04.01.2010 the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, dismissed the suit holding cruelty against the respondent and that the appellant had been forced to leave her matrimonial house because of his behaviour. The judgment in Matrimonial Case no. 396 of 2009 was assailed by the respondent before this Court in M.A. No. 72 of 2010 unsuccessfully and was dismissed on 09.02.2010 on contest. 3. The parties were married on 05.03.2007. Relations between them soured as early as on 15.05.2007 when the appellant left the matrimonial home. Subsequently, she also filed a criminal case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent and his parents. They were taken in custody for 14 days before being released. The criminal case is stated to be still pending. 4. We have been taken through the plaint and evidence including the cross examination of the parties. Curiously enough, in Matrimonial Case No. 396 of 2009 the findings of cruelty and reasonable cause for the appellant to leave matrimonial home were against the respondent. The same two grounds between the same parties have now been held against the Appellant. We also find from the evidence of the Appellant that the disposal of Matrimonial Case No. 396 of 2009 was brought to the attention of the court when Matrimonial Case no. 705 of 2009 was being heard, but surprisingly it finds no discussion or consideration in the order. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the fact that the parties have not been living together since15.05.2007, all attempts at reconciliation attempted by the Family Court failed on both occasions. Even today there is no possibility for restoration of matrimonial ties between them and, therefore, he does not oppose the present appeal. 6. Our attention has been invited by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent to 2004 (2)PLJR, 128 (Prabhat Shekhar Vs. Even today there is no possibility for restoration of matrimonial ties between them and, therefore, he does not oppose the present appeal. 6. Our attention has been invited by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent to 2004 (2)PLJR, 128 (Prabhat Shekhar Vs. Smt. Poonam kumri) observing at paragraph 5 as follows :— “5. Such a petition under Section 13(B) of the Act ordinarily has to be presented before the District Court having jurisdiction to entertain that. However, the parties have fought this case since the year 1992 and 11 valuable years of their lives have been weathered away so far conjugal bliss is concerned. In the interest of justice as also taking into the consideration the provisions under Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in my opinion, such an application can be entertained at this stage also, particularly when the parties have reached at a compromise. In so far as provision under Section 13(B) of the Act that after filing of such a petition the parties should be allowed six months of interregnum period to reconsider the matter in order to save the marriage is concerned, I find from the case of the appellant and the respondent that the marriage between them has broken down irretrievably and there is no scope to bring in any reconciliation between them. That being so, any delay in granting them freedom from the nuptial bonds would, in my view, only amount to keep them under mental stress for a further period of six months without any hope of and improvement in the situation. Therefore, granting of gap of six months period, provided under Section 13(B) of the Act, is hereby dispensed with.” 7. The appellant is stated to be approximately 34 years of age today and the respondent approximately 41 years of age. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, both of them deserve the opportunity to start life afresh. Acrimonious relationship which has developed between them has further been compounded by the criminal case in which the respondent and his parents had also to undergo custody. The case is stated to be still pending and is being contested by the parties. 8. Rapprochement between the parties is a distinct impossibility. Any attempt by us to force them for making the façade of a marriage would be counter productive for the two human lives. 9. The case is stated to be still pending and is being contested by the parties. 8. Rapprochement between the parties is a distinct impossibility. Any attempt by us to force them for making the façade of a marriage would be counter productive for the two human lives. 9. We, therefore, order the marriage to be dissolved. The parties stand divorced. Learned counsel for the petitioner waives any right for any return of goods given at the time of marriage. 10. The appeal is allowed. 11. Let the lower court records be returned.