Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1416 (JHR)

Sudhira Minj v. Amit Anuj Minj

2018-07-04

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. Wife is the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.03.2016 passed in M.M. Case No. 114/2015 instituted by the petitioner husband/Respondent herein for a decree of divorce under section 10(x) of the Christian Divorce Marriage Act, 1869. 2. Case of the petitioner/husband: Parties entered into nuptial knot as per Christian customs and rites on 18.05.2012. The Respondent/wife was employed as a Nurse in Central University, Brambe, Ranchi. She had also got accommodation there. They lived together in the accommodation of University. Petitioner was working in the Electricity Department. Husband alleged repeated taunts and remarks against him by the wife, alleging that he was a worthless person employed in a private Institution. His in-laws also started living in the said quarter and ill-treating him. It became impossible for him to lead life with the Respondent. She used filthy language and also assaulted him and asked him to leave the quarter on 05.05.2014. He submitted an application before Sarpanch of village Aamgaon, Gumla on 07.11.2014 alleging cruel behaviour of his wife. He also made an application before Mandar P.S. on 15.05.2015 stating that she wanted to leave him forever. He also submitted an application before the police with an undertaking that he was ready to keep his wife with due respect. On 21.02.2015 he submitted an application to N.W.G.E.L Church at Aamgaon. Petitioner alleged that since 05.05.2014, he and the Respondent have not been living together and she has deprived him from sexual relationship which amounts to cruelty. He sought decree of divorce along with cost and any other relief (s). 3. Respondent did not turn up even after notice, as per the findings of the Learned Court and the case commenced ex-parte. Petitioner examined four witnesses. PW-1 is the petitioner himself, PW-2 is Mainjas Minz, uncle of the petitioner, PW-3 is Satish Minzident and PW-4 is the father of the petitioner. Learned Family Court proceeded to decide the suit on the basis of the pleadings of the petitioner/husband and the testimony of the four witnesses adduced on his behalf and the documentary evidence brought on record. 4. According to the petitioner/husband, since their marriage on 18.05.2012 as per Christian customs and rites, they were living together in the staff nurse quarter of Central University, Brambe. He was working in the Electricity Department on contract. 4. According to the petitioner/husband, since their marriage on 18.05.2012 as per Christian customs and rites, they were living together in the staff nurse quarter of Central University, Brambe. He was working in the Electricity Department on contract. Petitioner supported his case as made out in the plaint in relation to the allegation of taunt and ill-treatment on her part. He also intimated to the police that his articles were locked in the room of the Respondent. Officer-in-charge tried to patch up the matter and after conciliation, a compromise was arrived at in the police station. Carbon copy thereof was brought on record as Ext-1 with objection. He further stated that he wants to keep his wife with due respect, but she has not abided by the terms of the compromise, nor is ready to live with him. He raised this issue before the Sarpanch and Mukhia and Members of the society. The petition made before the Sarpanch is marked ‘X’ for identification. However, Sarpanch did not take any action. Seal of the police station was lacking in Ext.-1, Learned Court did not consider it proper to rely on. So far as document marked as ‘X’, Learned Court observed that neither Sarpanch nor Priest of N.W.G.E.L. Church have been examined. Therefore, evidence to that extent can’t be taken into account in the absence of corroboration. The husband further alleged that the wife has been staying away for the last two years and their relationship has almost come to an end. It was impossible to lead matrimonial life in future. 5. PW-2 has also supported the case of the petitioner and stated that it was impossible for the petitioner to lead happy matrimonial life with her. 6. PW-3 besides supporting the case of the petitioner on the point of marriage and employment and her behavior, has also stated that despite compromise between the parties at the police station, Respondent did not live with the petitioner and is living separately. 7. PW-4, father of the petitioner, has also stated about his employment in Electricity Department and the Respondent being employed as Nurse in Central University, Brambe, Ranchi. He talked about humiliation of the petitioner at her hands. He also stated about an incidence when she and her family members attacked the petitioner. On hearing alarm, he reached to the place and somehow got rid of this risk of assault. He talked about humiliation of the petitioner at her hands. He also stated about an incidence when she and her family members attacked the petitioner. On hearing alarm, he reached to the place and somehow got rid of this risk of assault. He had also sustained injury on his person. He referred to an application by the Respondent before the Mandar P.S. which bore her signature. Certified copy of the petition dated 15.02.2015 was marked as Ext-2. 8. Learned Family Court found from perusal of Ext- 2 that on 26.01.2015 she submitted complaint against her husband. Both of them were called in the P.S. where she mentioned that she did not want to live with him forever. She does not want to keep relationship with him as wife. Based on this exhibit, Learned Family Court had drawn inference that the Respondent had decided not to lead matrimonial life with her husband. Evidence of PW-1 thus found support from the Ext. 2. Ext. 1 was also referred to where petitioner had stated that he did not want to desert his wife, however, if she wanted to be liberated from relationship, he has no objection. In the absence of the Respondent and cross-examination of petitioner’s witnesses, Learned Family Court was persuaded to believe the case of the petitioner that the Respondent was determined to get rid of the matrimonial tie. Accordingly, prayer was allowed and marriage between the parties stood dissolved as the grounds of cruelty provided under section 10(x) of the Christian Divorce Act were satisfied. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/wife submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from serious error of law as well as on facts. Section 10(x) under Chapter-III of Divorce Act, 1869 provides the grounds on which either of the spouse may seek dissolution of the marriage. Section 10(x) provides that if Respondent has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the Respondent, the aggrieved spouse may seek dissolution of the marriage. He has submitted that the proceedings in the learned court were held ex-parte in haste, as no opportunity was granted to the appellant even after service of notice through paper publication. Immediately on the next date i.e. 19.02.2016, Learned Family Court proceeded to commence the proceedings ex-parte. He has submitted that the proceedings in the learned court were held ex-parte in haste, as no opportunity was granted to the appellant even after service of notice through paper publication. Immediately on the next date i.e. 19.02.2016, Learned Family Court proceeded to commence the proceedings ex-parte. Respondent was required to appear on 10.02.2016, as per paper publication made in Hindi daily on 07.02.2016. As such, she was denied opportunity to contest the case and cross-examine the plaintiff witnesses as also to adduce evidence in her support. At the same time, material exhibit-2 relied upon by the Learned Family Court, in no way, goes to establish the allegations of cruelty in marriage against the wife; Suit having been instituted only on the grounds of cruelty and no other grounds, the Learned Family Court fell in serious error in decreeing it in favour of the Respondent, treating Ext-2 as corroborative evidence on the point of cruelty. Ext-2, as per its content, refers to the petition dated 26.01.2015 filed by her alleging physical and mental torture at the hands of the petitioner/husband, addressed to the Officer-incharge, Mandar P.S., Ranchi. It further shows that both the spouse were called to the police station and that she was not ready for reconciliation. In such circumstances, she had indicated that she is not ready to live with him and that there would be no relationship with him. This, in no way, could be treated as evidence on the point of cruelty against her in favour of the petitioner/husband. This exhibit can also be construed in the sense that the appellant/wife who had complained of physical and mental torture at the police station, was not ready to reconcile on such allegation. As such, findings of the Learned Family Court are perverse and deserve to be interfered with. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that the appellant despite several efforts made including service of notice through paper publication, never turned up to contest the suit. Therefore, she cannot complain against the conduct of the proceeding ex-parte before the Learned Family Court. Respondent despite being unwilling to continue with marital relationship with the appellant has filed this appeal with a vengeful attitude. Appellant’s persistent misbehavior, as borne out from the evidence of the petitioner and his other witnesses, clearly gets established. Ext-2 further corroborates it. Therefore, she cannot complain against the conduct of the proceeding ex-parte before the Learned Family Court. Respondent despite being unwilling to continue with marital relationship with the appellant has filed this appeal with a vengeful attitude. Appellant’s persistent misbehavior, as borne out from the evidence of the petitioner and his other witnesses, clearly gets established. Ext-2 further corroborates it. Taking an overall view of the matter, Learned Family Court has allowed the suit and dissolved their marriage. Therefore, no interference should be made. 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and also taken note of the relevant material exhibits and deposition relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their own case. This matrimonial suit by the petitioner/husband sought dissolution of marriage between the parties on the sole ground of cruelty, as provided under section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869. Evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses though in support of the averments made in the plaint, are only oral on the point of allegation of cruelty. Cruelty in marriage is something beyond normal wear and tear of daily life. It must be of such a nature which creates reasonable apprehension in the minds of the aggrieved spouse that it would be harmful or injurious for him/her to live with his/her spouse. There are no exceptional circumstances or any other corroborative evidence which point out to such acts of the Respondent which could have lead to reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it was harmful or injurious for him to live with her. Ext-2 heavily relied upon by the petitioner and treated by the Learned Family Court as corroborative evidence, in its content, completely fails to establish any such allegations of cruelty as conceived under section 10(x) of the Act. Mere going to the police station by the Respondent with allegations of physical and mental torture being perpetrated by the husband, do not amount to such cruelty which would entitle the petitioner to seek divorce on that ground. Learned Family Court has completely failed to take into consideration that sanctimonious relationship of marriage as a institution, should not have been dissolved on unsubstantiated allegation of such nature. Learned Family Court has completely failed to take into consideration that sanctimonious relationship of marriage as a institution, should not have been dissolved on unsubstantiated allegation of such nature. Learned Family Court has proceeded to arrive at such an opinion in haste without any adequate material evidence on record to establish the instances of cruelty in marriage whether physical or mental. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the findings of the Learned Family Court are suffering from errors both in law and on facts. They suffer from lack of proper appreciation of evidence on record. 12. In view of the discussions made above, findings rendered by the Learned Family Court cannot be upheld. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. Appeal stands allowed. Decree accordingly.