Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 511 (JHR)

Sanjiv Agarwal v. Suman Agrawal

2013-04-17

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2013
JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J. The petitioner-appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment dated 26.11.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Ranchi, in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 40 of 2011whereby the Principal Judge dismissed the petitioner-appellant's suit filed under Section 13(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The case in brief is that the marriage between the petitioner-appellant and the defendant-respondent party was solemnized on 25.02.2008 as per Hindu rites and custom at Digambar Jain Mandir, Harmu Road, Ranchi. It is stated that after the aforesaid marriage, the defendant-respondent was taken to the house of the petitioner-appellant where the marriage was consummated. It is stated that immediately after some times of the marriage, the defendant-respondent started creating mischief and started going here and there without the consent of the appellant and without giving proper information of her whereabouts to the appellant. The appellant tried pacifying things but all in vain. It is stated that thereafter the defendant-respondent knowingly and intentionally often and on started keeping her away from the house of the appellant which was of course cause of concern for the appellant. It is stated that the appellant from the neighbours, came to know that she was often seen with other person where upon the appellant coolly tried to pacify the matter but she always shown her arrogance and paid no heed to the request of the appellant. It is stated that whenever the appellant tried to pacify the things in a cool and healthy atmosphere, she offered divorce and separation. It is stated that in the above circumstances, it is not feasible for the appellant to continue the marital relationship with the defendant except divorce. It is stated that due to aforesaid attitude and acts of the defendant, he is suffering form grave mental agony and distress and facing humiliation in public at large. 3. The petitioner appellant filed the suit on 10.02.2011 which was admitted on 22.02.2011. Thereafter, the notice was issued and ultimately notice was published in the daily news paper “Hindustan” dated 14.06.2011 but the defendant did not appear to contest the suit. The Suit was fixed for ex-party hearing. Petitioner-appellant examined three witnesses including himself as (P.W.3). P.W.1 is Tapendar Singh and P.W.2 is Sanjay Kumar, no document was filed on behalf of the petitioner- appellant. 4. The Suit was fixed for ex-party hearing. Petitioner-appellant examined three witnesses including himself as (P.W.3). P.W.1 is Tapendar Singh and P.W.2 is Sanjay Kumar, no document was filed on behalf of the petitioner- appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the witnesses and he himself have proved the allegations made against the defendant but the court below has not considered the same. 5. From the record, we find the plaintiff has not giving any specific date, month and year as to when the defendant misbehaved with the petitioner and his family members, even there is no specific name of any neighbour who is or are said have been seen the defendant talking on phone with other persons or so called male persons. Furthermore, even it is also not clear as to whether the defendant is living in the house of the petitioner or not. Nothing has come in the evidence of any of the witnesses including the petitioner-appellant himself regarding any type of cruelty. The petitioner has simply stated that he has suffered from mental agony, distress and facing humiliation in public. 6. P.W.1, who is friend of the petitioner is a hearsay witness. He has not stated the name of any of the neighbours with whom the defendant was seen talking on the phone. He has only heard from the Bhabhi and mother of the petitioner and they have protested against her talking over on phone. But neither the said Bhabhi nor the mother of the petitioner has been examined in this case as a witness. 7. P.W.2 is also a hearsay witness. He has also not given the name of any neighbour with whom the defendant is alleged to be talked and he only heard this thing from the elder brother of the plaintiff. He has not personally even seen the defendant with any particular person. 8. Lastly P.W.3 who is appellant petitioner. He has also not given any date as to when and on which date, the defendant left his house without his permission. He has simply stated that he learnt from the neighbours that his wife is moving with other persons but he has not disclosed the name of any such person. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not specifically asserted about any specific act of the defendant which has caused cruelty. 9. He has simply stated that he learnt from the neighbours that his wife is moving with other persons but he has not disclosed the name of any such person. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not specifically asserted about any specific act of the defendant which has caused cruelty. 9. The petitioner has not examined either his mother, brother or Bhabhi in support his case who are said to have seen the defendant talking on phone with the other male person. 10. Considering and scrutinizing the materials on records and the evidence of the witnesses, we find the appellant has failed to prove any act of cruelty as well as desertion against the defendant namely Suman Agarwal and on the other hand, the witnesses have proved the marriage of the petitioner with the defendant. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.