Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 201 (JHR)

Satya Narayan Prasad Mehtha v. Sabia Devi

2017-01-30

H.C.MISHRA, S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as also learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 has not appeared in spite of service of notice. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2007, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag, in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 19 of 2002, whereby the suit filed by the appellant for dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the respondent No. 1, by a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery, has been dismissed by the Court below. 3. According to the appellant''s case, the marriage between the parties had taken place according to Hindu rites and customs about three years prior to the filing of the suit. It is stated that the respondent-wife used to visit her parents'' place without the permission of her husband and it is also alleged that she had illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, the respondent No. 2. The case of the appellant is that at the time of marriage, he was aged about 14 years, whereas, the respondent-wife was aged about 21 years and mainly on the ground of adultery of his wife, the suit was filed in the Court below. 4. Upon notice, the respondent-wife appeared and filed her written statement and entire allegations were denied. She stated that at time of marriage, both of them were majors and she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry, for which Panchayatees were also held, but the cruelty continued and she was also poisoned by her husband and in-laws, for which a criminal case was also filed, which was pending, and after filing of the criminal case, the present suit was filed. 5. The impugned Judgment shows that two witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant in the Court below, who were appellant and his father. The respondent-wife examined five witnesses. The appellant and his father supported their case in their evidence and the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent-wife denied those allegations and supported the respondent''s case. The Court below, on the basis of the evidence on record, has found that the appellant had failed to provide the case of adultery against the respondent-wife. The Court below has also found that both the parties, at the time of their marriage, were major and has accordingly, dismissed the suit. 6. The Court below, on the basis of the evidence on record, has found that the appellant had failed to provide the case of adultery against the respondent-wife. The Court below has also found that both the parties, at the time of their marriage, were major and has accordingly, dismissed the suit. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant in the Court below have fully supported the allegation of adultery against respondent-wife but the Court below has not relied upon the evidence and has dismissed the suit. Learned counsel submitted that since both the witnesses examined by the appellant in the Court below have specifically stated about the adulterous relationship between the respondent-wife and her brother-in-law, it was a fit case in which the suit ought to have been decreed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Court below, as the evidence of both the sides have been meticulously dealt with in the Judgment and the Court had come to the correct finding. 8. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the impugned Judgment, we find that in support of the case of adultery, only two witnesses have been examined by the appellant in the Court below, who are the appellant and his father. Evidence of one more witness was filed on behalf of the appellant, but he did not turn-up for his cross-examination and his evidence was accordingly, expunged. Thus, it is apparent that though the appellant and his father have supported the allegation of adultery, but this allegation is supported only by the highly interested persons and no independent witness has been examined to show that the respondent No. 1 was having any illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. Indeed, the respondent-wife, who was examined as RW-5, had categorically stated that she had never visited the house of her brother-in-law and she stood the test of cross-examination. We also find that the Court below has also come to the cogent finding that both the parties to the marriage were major at the time of marriage. Even otherwise it is not believable that a boy of fourteen years of age shall marry a girl of twenty one years in an arranged marriage. 9. We also find that the Court below has also come to the cogent finding that both the parties to the marriage were major at the time of marriage. Even otherwise it is not believable that a boy of fourteen years of age shall marry a girl of twenty one years in an arranged marriage. 9. We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Court below, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. 10. There is no merit in this Appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.