Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1120 (JHR)

Srikant Poddar v. Anju Kumari

2014-11-17

D.N.PATEL, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2014
JUDGMENT D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th June, 2012, passed by Shri B.B. Mangal Murti, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda, in Matrimonial Case No. 76 of 2009, whereby and whereunder the application filed on behalf of the appellant (original applicant) under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed. 2. The appellant (original applicant) had filed an application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming divorce on the ground of adultery, cruelty and desertion. It was stated therein that the marriage of the appellant (original applicant) was solemnised with the respondent no. 1 in the year 1974 and out of the said wedlock, two sons and one daughter were born. Further case of the appellant (original applicant) was that on account of his efforts, respondent no. 1, who was a matriculate, obtained service as a teacher at Primary School, Benakurah. On account of village politics, a case being Misc. Case No. 18 of 1991 was instituted by respondent no. 1 before the learned C.J.M., Sahibganj but the same was dismissed on 22.08.1992. It was also the case of the appellant (original applicant) that the respondent no. 1 in his absence was living adulterous life with one Ram Bilas Paswan and according to him, coincidentally on 6.7.1994 when he visited village Kajrail, both the respondents herein were found in a compromising position. Further case of the appellant (original applicant) is that the respondent no. 1 had voluntary sexual intimacy with several persons including one Mohan Ravidas, who was a teacher, which, according to the appellant (original applicant) was apparent from the letters written by the mother of respondent no. 1. 3. On being noticed, the respondent no. 1 appeared and filed her written statement, in which she had denied the allegations levelled against her by the appellant (original applicant). She further in her written statement had stated that she had indeed filed a case for maintenance before the learned C.J.M., Sahibganj but due to intervention of well-wishers, the matter was compromised, which resulted in dismissal of the said case. She had further stated that a criminal case was instituted by her against the appellant (original applicant) and 12 others under sections 307 and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, which is still pending. 4. The respondent no. She had further stated that a criminal case was instituted by her against the appellant (original applicant) and 12 others under sections 307 and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, which is still pending. 4. The respondent no. 2 herein also filed written statement, in which he denied the allegations made in the complaint with respect to his illicit relationship with the respondent no. 1, as alleged by the appellant (original applicant). 5. Based on the averments, the issues were framed, which are as under:- (i) As the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has the petitioner got valid cause of action? (iii) Is the petitioner entitled for a decree for divorce against the respondent 1st party? (iv) Is the petitioner entitled for a decree and for any other relief? 6. Learned court below after hearing both the parties had passed the impugned judgment dated 20.06.2012 in Matrimonial Case No. 76 of 2009 dismissing the application for divorce preferred by the appellant (original applicant). Hence this appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondent no. 1 was living an adulterous life especially with respondent no. 2 as well as another teacher namely Mohan Ravidas. On the point of desertion, he has argued that they were living separately as husband and wife for the last 18 years because of the fact that the respondent no. 1 had left her matrimonial house without any excuse. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant (original applicant) has been subjected to mental cruelty on account of false and frivolous cases, which have been filed by respondent no. 1 against him and his family members. 9. From perusal of the judgment impugned, it appears that the appellant (original applicant) had claimed divorce on the ground of adultery, cruelty and desertion. So far as the ground of cruelty is concerned, it is evident that the case instituted under section 125 Cr. P.C. before the court of C.J.M., Sahibganj had ended in a compromise as such the same could not be claimed as one of the grounds for seeking divorce. As regards desertion and adultery, from the findings recorded by the learned court below, it appears that it is the appellant (original applicant), who had himself deserted respondent no. 1 and delayed response of the appellant (original applicant) in making allegations against the respondent no. As regards desertion and adultery, from the findings recorded by the learned court below, it appears that it is the appellant (original applicant), who had himself deserted respondent no. 1 and delayed response of the appellant (original applicant) in making allegations against the respondent no. 1 of adultery demolishes such claim. The learned court below has, therefore, after discussing the entire materials on record has rightly come to the conclusion that none of the grounds, in which divorce was claimed for could be found to be tenable. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, the appellant (original applicant) has failed to prove the allegations of adultery cruelty and desertion and, hence, we see no reason to entertain this first appeal and no error has been committed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in dismissing the Miscellaneous Case No. 76 of 2009. This appeal fails and accordingly dismissed.