Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2376 (JHR)

Ajay Kumar v. Geetanjali Devi

2018-10-26

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGEMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Husband is the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2016 and 20.12.2016 respectively passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 103 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the petitioner/appellant (husband) under section 13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 had been dismissed. 3. The case of the petitioner now appellant in brief, is that the petitioner and the respondent are legally married husband and wife, their marriage was solemnized on 25.11.2007 as per Hindu rites and custom. After marriage both the parties lived together as husband and wife at Bokaro but there is no issue. The respondent is a short tempered lady and from the very beginning her conduct and behaviour was not proper. The respondent was having no love and affection towards her husband and in laws rather she was reluctant for cohabitation in spite of all efforts made by the petitioner. The mother of the respondent interfered in their marital life and created great turbulence in their peaceful marital life and lastly on 27.2.2008 the respondent left her matrimonial home without any reasonable cause taking away her all jewellery, clothes, gifts etc. Thereafter, the petitioner went to his sasural for taking bidai of the respondent but the respondent denied to do so. The petitioner was working in Delhi, where the respondent along with some ante social elements went there and she abused and insulted the petitioner and due to this the petitioner had been dismissed from his job. The respondent used to threaten the petitioner and his family members about implicating them in a false dowry case. Thereafter, on 27.06.2009 the petitioner’s father had filed an informatory petition No. 216 of 2009. It is further stated that a Panchayati was done for resolving the matter but in vain. On 28.01.2010 the respondent had lodged a false complain in Bokaro Mahila Police Station and C.P. Case No. 262 of 2010 under section 498A /406 IPC and 3 /4 D.P. Act against the petitioner and all his family members. For the aforesaid reasons prayer has been made to pass a decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of the petitioner on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 4. For the aforesaid reasons prayer has been made to pass a decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of the petitioner on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. 4. The respondent appeared and filed her written statement, and stated that the suit filed by the petitioner was not maintainable either in facts or in law and the same had been filed on the basis of false and fabricated grounds and without any cogent reason. No specific allegation and ground has been taken for obtaining divorce. The respondent belongs to a very low middle class family, whereas the petitioner is a Pharmacist and works in a prestigious Hospital and draws a salary of Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioner has got a substantial landed property, building at his native village and he is having much higher status. The respondent never made any objection or disturbances in discharging her marital obligation and in cohabiting with the petitioner and mother of the respondent never interfered in the marital life of her own daughter. The respondent did not leave her home on her own, neither had she taken away her jewellery or belongings and nor the respondent and her family members insult or demoralize the petitioner or his family members. The respondent neither went to Delhi nor abused him in Delhi and cause his dismissal from his job. In fact, the petitioner committed manipulation and misappropriation at Batra Hospital due to which he had been terminated from service. It was further stated that due to non fulfillment of dowry demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- the respondent was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by all the family members of the petitioner at the instance of the petitioner and ousted her from her matrimonial home keeping her entire belongings including the ornaments. Thereafter, several panchayatis were held but to no effect. Having no other option, the respondent filed one Maintenance Case No. 79- M/2011 and a C.P. Case 262-C/10 under section 498A IPC against the petitioner and his family members. During the hearing of anticipatory bail application, the respondent categorically stated before the Hon’ble Patna High Court that she was ready to go and live with the petitioner unconditionally but the petitioner refused to live with the respondent. During conciliation of maintenance case, the petitioner refused to live with the respondent. During the hearing of anticipatory bail application, the respondent categorically stated before the Hon’ble Patna High Court that she was ready to go and live with the petitioner unconditionally but the petitioner refused to live with the respondent. During conciliation of maintenance case, the petitioner refused to live with the respondent. It was further stated that the respondent was all along ready to go and lead her conjugal life with the petitioner unconditionally but the petitioner was not agreeable to this and thus it was the petitioner who had committed cruelty with the respondent and had deserted the respondent and hence, the instant suit was liable to be dismissed. 5. The following issues were recast for adjudication of this case: I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? II. Whether there is any valid cause of action or filing this suit? III. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(ia) of the H.M. Act on the basis of cruelty alleged to have been committed upon him by his wife/respondent? IV. Whether the respondent has deserted the plaintiff/petitioner without any reasonable cause, continuously for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the suit? V. Whether the plaintiff/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for by him? 6. In this case the petitioner has examined four witnesses in support of his case:- P.W. 1 is Ajay Kumar is the petitioner, P.W. 2 is Sushila Devi (mother of the petitioner), P.W. 3 is Radha Devi and P.W. 4 is Madan Lal Sao. P.W. 1 who is the petitioner had in his evidence stated that just after the marriage his wife came to his native village and they resided there for three days only. The petitioner along with his wife came to his quarters at Bokaro and both started living together as husband and wife. On 27.02.2008 his wife went to her maika forcibly taking away her ornaments and clothing, with her parents and others. He had also stated that during his wife’s stay at his house, she used to quarrel with him and his family members and she also used to talk on phone. He has also stated that his wife’s friend used to visit to his wife and on objecting, she used to threaten to implicate them in false dowry case. He had also stated that during his wife’s stay at his house, she used to quarrel with him and his family members and she also used to talk on phone. He has also stated that his wife’s friend used to visit to his wife and on objecting, she used to threaten to implicate them in false dowry case. He had also stated that his parents-in-law used to make interference in their marital life. He has also stated he went to his sasural to bring his wife but his parents-in-law quarreled with him and his wife told him to go, otherwise he will be implicated in false case. He had also stated that his father along with others also went to bring his wife back, but they did not agree. He had also stated that on 18.06.2008 his wife and others came to his workplace is Delhi and abused him in filthy language due to which he had been terminated from his services. He also stated that his wife has filed dowry case against him and his family members and due to this, he had undergone jail custody. He has also stated that his wife has also filed a maintenance case at Betia and he has been living separately from his wife since 27.02.2008. During cross examination, he stated that he was at his house at Bokaro when his wife left from his house. He has also stated that in the year, 2010 a Panchyati was held but in vain. He stated that his parents-in-law went to Delhi and threatened to implicate him in a false dowry case. 7. P.W. 2 is the mother of the petitioner had stated that her daughter-in-law lived with her at Bokaro for three months and during this period her son used to come to Bokaro. She denied the suggestion that Geetanjali (respondent) went to Delhi in the month of June, 2008 to reside with the petitioner but the petitioner did not agree and ousted her. She also denied the suggestion that the respondent and her family members tried to persuade them to keep the respondent with them. 8. P.W. 3 is neighbor of the petitioner, she had deposed that one day in December, 2007 when she went to the house of the petitioner, she saw that mother of the petitioner was doing household work and the respondent was talking on phone. 8. P.W. 3 is neighbor of the petitioner, she had deposed that one day in December, 2007 when she went to the house of the petitioner, she saw that mother of the petitioner was doing household work and the respondent was talking on phone. She has further stated that on 27.2.2008 she went to the house of the petitioner and saw that there were 3-4 persons were sitting and the respondent was talking with her father-in-law loudly. Mother of the petitioner told her that without their consent, the respondent is adamant to go with her father. 9. P.W. 4 had stated that in the month of January, 2010, respondent and her younger sister had complained to the Mahila Police Station but the matter was compromised orally. He had also stated that even after 2010 there was quarrel between the parties but neither any information was given nor any case was lodged. He had also stated that the respondent had lodged a case of dowry prohibition at Betia. 10. Besides oral evidence, the petitioner has filed the following documents which have been marked Exhibits and one document has been marked X for identification only. Exhibit-1 the Certified copy of the order sheet from 02.07.2010 to 26.02.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 262/2010 in the court of CJM, Betia, Bihar. Exhibit-1/a is Certiffied copy of the order sheet from 07.04.2011 to 17.03.2015 passed in Case No. 79/M-11 of the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Betia, Bihar. Exhibit-1/b is Certified copy of the order dated 04.04.2014 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in Cr. Misc No. 15873/2014. Exhibit-2 is Certified copy of the order dated 10.11.2014 passed in Cr. Misc No. 15873 of 2014 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna. Marked-X is Xerox copy of informatory petition No. 216/09 filed in the court of SDM, Chas, Bokaro 11. Respondent had examined herself as RW1, RW 2 was Bal Kanhaiya Prasad and RW 3 was Nila Devi. The respondent (RW-1) had stated that when she went to her sasural at Bokaro, the petitioner and his family members demanded Rs. 2, 00,000/- as dowry but due to non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand of dowry she had been subjected to cruelty and assault and ultimately she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 27.02.2008 and her jewelery and belongings were snatched from her. 2, 00,000/- as dowry but due to non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand of dowry she had been subjected to cruelty and assault and ultimately she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 27.02.2008 and her jewelery and belongings were snatched from her. In the month of June, 2009, she along with her parents went to Delhi to her husband’s residence but she was denied entry in the house. Thereafter, on 20.01.2010 she along with her father and others came to Bokaro but again she was not allowed into her matrimonial home rather her husband told her on phone that until and unless the demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- is fulfilled, they will not allow her entry and he will remarry. Thereafter on 28.01.2010 she had complained to the Mahila Police. R.W,.-1 also deposed that during the proceeding of Maintenance Case No. 79M/11 at Betia she had clearly stated that she is ready to live and lead her conjugal life with the petitioner unconditionally but it was the petitioner who denied to keep her. She had also deposed that the petitioner had also denied to keep her even before the Hon’ble Court judicature at Patna which has resulted in the rejection of his bail application. She had also stated that she is still ready to live with the petitioner unconditionally. She has also stated that since January, 2008 she has been living separately from her husband and since then there is no relationship between them. 12. RW-2 the father of the respondent had stated that on 05.02.2010 the petitioner came to his sasural at Betia where he abused and assaulted the respondent and went away without taking the respondent with him. He also stated that he and others tried their level best to settle the dispute with the petitioner but the petitioner and his family members did not agree to settle the dispute without the fulfillment of demand of dowry. He also stated that before filing of this case by the petitioner, his daughter has filed a maintenance case at Betia. 13. R.W. 3 is Nila Devi, mother of the respondent. She has substantially supported the evidence of R.W. 1 and R.W. 2. She has deposed that her daughter was harassed and assaulted for the dowry demand, and they had even given them Rs. 80,000/- but they still had other demands. 13. R.W. 3 is Nila Devi, mother of the respondent. She has substantially supported the evidence of R.W. 1 and R.W. 2. She has deposed that her daughter was harassed and assaulted for the dowry demand, and they had even given them Rs. 80,000/- but they still had other demands. Her husband, her daughter RW 1 and she had gone to Delhi to meet the petitioner in 2009 June but his sisters did not allow them entry in the house. In January, 2010 also they went to Bokaro but the in-laws refused to keep her daughter in Bokaro. On 05.02.2010, petitioner came to their house in Betia and abused and assaulted his wife, her daughter, but did not take her with him. She has also deposed that in an anticipatory bail application field before the Hon’ble Patna High Court in 2012, the petitioner had given in writing that he was ready to keep the respondent but later he refused in the Court itself. She is still willing to live with her husband even today. 14. Besides oral evidence, the respondent has filed Certified copy of the order dated 21.03.2014 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21445 of 2012 by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna and the same has been marked Exhibit-A. Further, Exhibit-A shows that the Hon’ble Court Judicature at Patna was pleased to reject the provisional bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 31.05.2012 on the ground that the petitioner is adamant and is not ready to give a second chance to the relationship nor to take the respondent to his home even for a day. ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT 15. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant and the respondent was married on 25th November, 2007 living in his native village for nearly three days they had gone to the quarter of the father of the appellant at Bokaro and started living there. She lived there only four days or very short while and in fact on 27.02 .2008 she had suddenly and unilaterally left her matrimonial home taking away all her ornaments and clothing. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent is a short tempered lady having no care and concerned for her husband or her in-laws and she was reluctant to live with her husband in spite of the best efforts made by him. 16. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the respondent is a short tempered lady having no care and concerned for her husband or her in-laws and she was reluctant to live with her husband in spite of the best efforts made by him. 16. Learned counsel has argued that during his wife's stay at his house, she used to quarrel with him and his family members regularly and she used to talk continuously on the phone. That his wife's friend used to visit at the house and on objection from him she used to quarrel and threatened to implicate them in a false case. 17. Learned counsel further submitted that the in-laws of the petitioner unnecessarily interfered in the martial and domestic life of the couple and made life difficult for them. He had gone to sasural to get back his wife but he was denied getting her back and his wife also did not come back with him. His wife told him to go otherwise if not he will be implicated in a case. Even his father had gone to get her back but the in-laws did not agree. Counsel says it means also the wife was also not willing to come back to her husband. 18. Learned counsel has also said that he was working in Delhi and on 18.6.2008, his wife and others came to his work place in Delhi and abused him in filthy language and because of the this seen that was created he was terminated from his workplace in the hospital and he had to forgo a significant salary that was being paid to him. His wife had no thought of the consequences the loss of job would entail which shows her cruelty towards him. 19. Counsel has further submitted that apart from the aforesaid, harassment against him she had also filed a case pertaining to demand of dowry against him and his family to further harass him and he in fact had to undergo jail custody with only indicates the extent she is willing to go to inflict cruelty on her husband, the appellant. Moreover, the respondent had also lodged a false complaint case in the Bokaro Mahila Police Station against him. ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS 20. Moreover, the respondent had also lodged a false complaint case in the Bokaro Mahila Police Station against him. ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS 20. Learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, argued that if one looks at the petition filed below, in the learned court below seeking divorce, from the petition itself it is apparent that there is no concrete and factual grounds on which the petitioner, the appellant herein, has sought to seek divorce. He is unable to make out any cogent grounds of cruelty neither has he been able to substantiate such cruelty by hard evidences. He further argues that the appellant has earlier in the court below and here also argued that his in-laws used to make interference and disturbances in his family life, however, he has not been able to show on which dates and at what time of the day such interference and disturbances were made. Neither has the appellant been able to indicate the manner of disturbances that would be made by the parents of his wife. 21. Learned counsel has then argued that his allegation that his wife the respondent had gone along with other persons to Delhi at his very place of work and then abused him with filthy language so much so that his job was terminated is a figment of his imagination because it is not expected that a girl or a lady who hails from rather simple and backward places will go to such a big metropolitan city and into an advanced hospital like Batra Hospital and in a midst of so many persons abused her husband. This allegation is purely a concoction. 22. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that far from the wife of the appellant harassing him along with her parents on the other hand, this is a case where much money has been demanded by the appellant and his family to the extent of Rs. 2, 00,000/- and in non-fulfillment of this demand she has been forced to leave her home, and whenever and whatever little time she had stayed with her husband, she was harassed, tortured and also assaulted for these demands. Learned counsel has further stated that many panchayati were held to settle the matter but all had gone in vain. 23. 2, 00,000/- and in non-fulfillment of this demand she has been forced to leave her home, and whenever and whatever little time she had stayed with her husband, she was harassed, tortured and also assaulted for these demands. Learned counsel has further stated that many panchayati were held to settle the matter but all had gone in vain. 23. Regarding the two cases, counsel for the respondent had argued that it was only when the wife's back was pushed against the wall, and she was not able to make her husband and her in-laws see sense and that she should be taken back and treated with all due respect and care, that she then was forced and compelled to make a complaint in the Mahila Police Station in Bokaro as well as forced to file a C.P. Case 262-C/10, and it was only to seek proper redressal through the courts of law. 24. Learned counsel for the respondent also argued that he is reiterating what has been argued earlier in the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Cri. Misc No. 21445 of 2012, that the appellant had said that he was ready to give the relationship another chance but later on the appellant had refused to keep the respondent with him and due to this he was denied the confirmation of his provisional bail by the Hon’ble Patna High Court. His refusal to take back his wife had cost him dearly. CONCLUSIONS 25. Having gone through the records of the case and the evidences, having heard the arguments and in the facts and circumstances, it is seen that the couple were married on 25.11.2007 and she had left her matrimonial home on 27.02.2008. This is just about three months and over. It is difficult to see what kind of cruelty the respondent would be responsible for in the house of the appellant herein where she has gone as a newly wedded bride with much expectations and high hopes of a happily married life. However, within the short while, the husband has alleged that she used to argue with him at home and with his family members and she used to bring a friend to the house and when he had objected, then she had threatened him with filing of false dowry case against them. However, within the short while, the husband has alleged that she used to argue with him at home and with his family members and she used to bring a friend to the house and when he had objected, then she had threatened him with filing of false dowry case against them. It is difficult to perceive as to what kinds of arguments she was indulging in such a short while that she stayed with her husband at Bokaro. It is very difficult to perceive that a young woman who has just come from her own home and is duly married and has come to the township of Bokaro in the Steel City where she is with her husband and in-laws will in a short while have the courage to enter into the kind of quarrels that has been alleged. The husband has said that she used to bring friend or a friend used to visit her at the residence, but he has not been able to name this person and as to who he was and what he was doing and where her friend used to live and therefore there is grave doubt regarding this allegation. He has also alleged that she used to talk on the phone, however, he has not been able to substantiate as to who she was talking to. However, talking on the phone or a mobile to at least some extent is a very trivial matter. 26. There is another allegation made by the husband which does not seem probable at all. He has alleged that on 18.06.2008 that is also within a year of the marriage, his wife, the respondent had gone to Delhi to his workplace at the Batra Hospital and abused him filthily to such an extent that his job was terminated. This allegation is highly doubtful because first thing it is very unlikely that a newly married young woman would have so much of courage to venture into Delhi and that too into Batra Hospital and resort to filthily abusing her husband in the presence of all and sundry. This itself seems unbelievable. Further he has said that he was abused filthily to such an extent that his job was terminated. This itself seems unbelievable. Further he has said that he was abused filthily to such an extent that his job was terminated. This is also unbelievable, because he would be losing his work if he had done certain misconduct or there was a misconduct on his part that related to his duties in the Hospital. The arguments that the husband and wife may have had, would only be something that would essentially be a matter between the husband and wife and for that the Hospital Authorities would only be keen that they settle it in a proper manner. Because the relationship of husband and wife was strained, that would definitely not be a reason for terminating the job of the appellant. This allegation on the face of it, itself seems absurd and that is why it is totally improbable and unbelievable. Rather what has been brought in the evidence from the respondent side is that he has committed some manipulation and misappropriation in the Batra Hospital and due to which he has been terminated from the service. 27. From the aforesaid records and facts and circumstances it is seen that no such cruelty as alleged on the part of the wife can be made out so as to bring it within the purview of section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. Rather, on the converse harassment and complaint is made against the wife respondent over trivial matter. She was ousted from the matrimonial home, and that is sought to be construed as desertion. Therefore, even offence under section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be made out. 28. So, having heard both the counsels, and having again gone through the evidences on hand; based on aforesaid reasonings, I do not think that the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2016 and 20.12.2016 respectively passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 103 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the petitioner husband under section 13 (1) (i-a) & (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been dismissed deserves interference in appeal. 29. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.