Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 408 (JHR)

Mritunjoy Chakraborty v. Shila Chakraborty

2017-02-28

H.C.MISHRA, S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 25.6.2017, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka, in Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No.30 of 2004, whereby the suit filed by the petitioner appellant for dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been dismissed on contest. 3. At the very outset, it may be stated that during the pendency of this appeal in this Court, we took steps for reconciliation between the parties at the hands of trained Mediator at Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, but the mediation failed as one of the parties did not appear for the mediation. Even thereafter, both the parties tried for settlement of the dispute outside the Court, but since, that also not materialized, the matter has been heard on merits. 4. According to the petitioner appellant's case, the marriage between the parties had taken place in the year 2000 as per the Hindu rites and customs and thereafter, they were living as husband and wife. The husband was employed in a company at Ranchi at the salary of Rs.2000/-, per month, and he used to live with his elder brother's family, and he had kept his wife at the village home along with his parents, where he used to visit at times. Out of the wedlock, a male child was also born. It is however, the case of the petitioner appellant that the behaviour of the wife was not good and she was insisting to live with the petitioner at Ranchi. She was brought to Ranchi also, to live with the husband in the house of his elder brother and she was again taken back to village home to look after the old parents of the petitioner appellant. This arrangement was not to the liking of the wife, rather she was insisting to live with the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner appellant that when the wife became pregnant, she went to her parents' place and she did not come back. It is from here, it is alleged that the cruelty started. This arrangement was not to the liking of the wife, rather she was insisting to live with the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner appellant that when the wife became pregnant, she went to her parents' place and she did not come back. It is from here, it is alleged that the cruelty started. It is also stated that the wife had also lodged a criminal case against the husband, in which the husband was called by the police and the matter was settled and it was decided that the petitioner appellant shall keep his wife with him, for which a paper was also prepared. Thereafter also, the petitioner brought his wife to the village home, where she resided for 2 to 3 days only and went back to father's place on 27.02.2002 without any reasonable cause. She again filed another criminal case being PCR Case No.122 of 2003 against her husband for the offence under Sections 323, 379 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, in which the husband had to remain in judicial custody for about seven days, but he was released after a compromise. It is the case of the petitioner appellant that whenever, the wife lived with the petitioner, she was expecting more money from the petitioner, wanted to visit cinema every week, to have dinner at hotel frequently and to purchase costly items, which demands could not be fulfilled, and it is alleged that these demands were also cruelty to the petitioner appellant. With these allegations, the suit was filed by the petitioner appellant in the Court below. 5. Upon notice, the respondent appeared in the Court below and she filed her written statement, in which the aforesaid allegations were denied. It is the case of the respondent wife that she was always willing to live with her husband and to lead a conjugal life with him. According to the respondent wife, she was being subjected to cruelty at her in-laws' place as there was demand of Rs.1,50,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage, but her father had managed to give only Rs.1,00,000/- in cash, and she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry. According to the respondent wife, she was being subjected to cruelty at her in-laws' place as there was demand of Rs.1,50,000/- as dowry at the time of marriage, but her father had managed to give only Rs.1,00,000/- in cash, and she was being subjected to cruelty and torture for the demand of dowry. It is also alleged that at Ranchi also, when she had gone to house of elder brother of the husband, she was subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry and her husband, being drunkard, used to assault her and abuse her in filthy languages. She was also deprived of proper food and daily necessities and accordingly, she was brought by her elder brother to her parents' place. She was taken back to the village while she was pregnant and again she was subjected to cruelty and torture and she was denied even the medical treatment, whereupon, her father took her back to his place, where, she gave birth to a baby in a nursing home. The husband did not come to see the new born baby. It is also alleged that while she was living at her in-laws' place, she was subjected to assaults and there was an attempt to kill her by pouring kerosene oil, but on the alarm raised, she was rescued and thereafter, she was ousted from the matrimonial home along with child, for which Kundahit P.S. Case No.22 of 2003 was filed. With these averments, the W.S. was filed in the Court below. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Court below, which related to the cruelty and desertion. Three witnesses were examined by the petitioner appellant in the Court below including himself and his elder brother, and he also proved the order-sheet of PCR Case No.110 of 2004. The respondent also examined three witnesses, including herself, her father and one villager of her in-laws' place. She also proved the documents relating to the PCR Case No.110 of 2004, which were marked Exhibit–A series. It may be stated that the documents relating to Kundahit P.S. Case No.22 of 2003, or PCR Case No.122 of 2003 have not been proved by the either side. 7. She also proved the documents relating to the PCR Case No.110 of 2004, which were marked Exhibit–A series. It may be stated that the documents relating to Kundahit P.S. Case No.22 of 2003, or PCR Case No.122 of 2003 have not been proved by the either side. 7. It is apparent from the impugned Judgment that the Court below has fully discussed the evidence adduced by both the sides, in which, the witnesses examined by the petitioner appellant in the Court below have supported the petitioner's case, whereas, the witnesses examined by the respondent have supported the respondent's case. The Court below, upon appraisal of the evidence on record and also taking into consideration the documentary evidence, has come to the conclusion that the desertion was due to cruelty meted out by the petitioner himself and the Court below has found on the basis of the evidence on record that the respondent was being subjected to cruelty and torture by the appellant husband and accordingly, the suit has been dismissed by the Court below. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the Court below is not sustainable in the eyes law, in as much as, the evidence adduced by the appellant has not been fully appreciated by the Court below, rather the Court below has one sidedly relied upon the evidence adduced by the respondent wife and has given the finding that she was being subjected to cruelty and torture. Learned counsel submitted that on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the appellant, the appellant had been able to prove his case, and it is a fit case in which the marriage between the parties ought to have been dissolved by a decree of divorce. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent wife has been able to prove her case with the help of oral as well as documentary evidence that she was being subjected to cruelty and torture at the hands of her in-laws and accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent wife has been able to prove her case with the help of oral as well as documentary evidence that she was being subjected to cruelty and torture at the hands of her in-laws and accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment. 10. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the cruelty, in this case, as alleged by the husband is only for the instances that the wife was insisting to live with him and she wanted to live a decent life. There is no other allegation of cruelty against the wife. Even on the admitted case of the petitioner appellant, we are of the considered view, that there is no instances in the entire case, which can make out a case of such cruelty against the respondent wife, so as to entitle the husband to a decree of divorce. We find that the Court below has meticulously examined the evidence on record and has come to the finding that it was the wife, who was being subjected to cruelty and torture and has dismissed the suit. 11. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 25.6.2017, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka, in Matrimonial (Divorce) Suit No.30 of 2004. 12. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed.