Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 409 (CHH)

Deepak Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Puran Lal Dewangan v. Gunja Dewangan W/o Shri Deepak Kumar Dewangan

2022-09-15

GOUTAM BHADURI, RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL

body2022
JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2018 passed by the family Court, Raipur in Civil Suit bearing H.M.No.379/2016 whereby the application filed by the husband under section 13(1)(1-a) of the Hindu marriage Act was dismissed. 2. As per the plaint averments, both the parties are engineering graduates and they got married on 04.02.2013. Thereafter, respondent wife joined the company of the husband but since the wife is in the Government Job earning at par with the husband, she used to dominate the husband and hurl abuses at him. It is further contended that the wife used to pressurize the husband to get her father treated and wanted his entire salary to spend on medical treatment of her father, but the husband did not yield to the pressure of wife. For this reason, gradually a dispute began. When the husband tried to console the wife, she came out with a threat that he would be inculpated in a false case. It was stated that without any reason, she often used to leave the matrimonial house and stay at maternal home, for which, a meeting was convened on 12.06.2016. Thereafter with the intervention of the elders of Society, she came back to matrimonial home on 19.06.2016. Even after her rejoining the company of husband, she did not refrain from demanding money for treatment of her father. The husband having expressed his inability to extend the monetary support, she went away to her maternal home and a report was lodged on 02.07.2016 which led to registration of FIR. Later on, a counseling took place on 05.07.2016 but she refused to come back. Therefore, on these grounds, a decree of divorce was sought by the husband. 3. The respondent wife filed her written statement and denied the allegations. It was stated that she never wanted any financial support for treatment of her father and never refused to attend any social meeting and there was no topic about mutual divorce from her. She has further pleaded that during counseling, she did not deny proposal of reunion. She further stated that after marriage, she was pressurized to give a mutual divorce by the husband. Therefore, an application u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation was filed by her. She has further pleaded that during counseling, she did not deny proposal of reunion. She further stated that after marriage, she was pressurized to give a mutual divorce by the husband. Therefore, an application u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation was filed by her. She further stated that because of the dowry, she was harassed by hurling abuses and by subjecting to assaults and domestic violence. In such factual back ground, the wife prayed that the application of the husband may be dismissed. 4. The learned family court after evaluating the evidence dismissed the application seeking divorce. Hence, this petition. 5. Before this Court though the respondent was represented, yet intermittently her counsel stopped to appear. Therefore, on 10.05.2022, SPC was issued to her. Even a show cause notice was also sent to her counsel for non-appearance. After service of SPC, again the advocate appeared to argue the case but subsequently failed to appear. Therefore, after giving several opportunities, this Court by order dated 01.09.2022 has decided to proceed with hearing in absence of representation of the respondent. Accordingly, the matter is finally heard in absence of respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the statement of the husband remains unrebutted and the fact that he was implicated in false case u/s 294 & 323 IPC would be evident from acquittal and the only intention of the wife is to harass the husband. She refers to certain documents to show that the acquittal was recorded on 12.03.2022 and the appellant was exonerated of the charges punishable u/ss 294 & 393 IPC, for which, the husband was already arrested subsequent to file of report by the wife. She would further submit that the charge sheet was filed in Crime No. No.206/ 2016 registered against the appellant for the offence u/s 294 & 393 IPC and copy of charge sheet would show that though the allegations have been made but eventually it was not proved and as many as 13 to 16 chances were given for evidence from 11.05.2017 to 04.05.2022 but deliberately she did not appear, which would show that false allegations were made. She would further submit that the wife had also filed an application for judicial separation u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act which came to be rejected by the Family Court vide order dt. 25.01.2018 passed in Case No.702/2016. She would further submit that the wife had also filed an application for judicial separation u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act which came to be rejected by the Family Court vide order dt. 25.01.2018 passed in Case No.702/2016. A certified copy of the order passed in Case No.702/2016 is placed before us. She would further submit that the wife had left the husband since 01.07.2016 and therefore, apart from cruelty there has been desertion as well at the behest of the wife. Therefore, the application of the husband for divorce be allowed. 7. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent, as recorded earlier. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the court below. 9. The divorce was sought on the ground that the wife demanded the money and pressurized the husband for treatment of his father and the money having not been given, he was subjected to torture and mental cruelty. The husband has deposed in his statement that he had limited source of income, as such, financially could not support such treatment of father of the wife. He has further stated in his statement that on 12.06.2016, a social meeting was held by the wife herself and without any reason left the company of husband and came back on 19.06.2016. Thereafter on 01.07.2016 again she went back to her maternal home and made a report on 02.07.2016 at Purani Basti, Raipur and subsequently a report was made under Domestic Violence Act. Copy of the charge sheet relating to offences u/s 294 & 323 of IPC which was filed subsequent to lodging of report dated 02.07.2016 would show that the husband was arrested on 03.07.2016 and the certified copy of the order dated 12.03.2022 would show that for the last 36 hearings, the complainant wife did not appear to adduce evidence. Eventually the JMFC on 12.03.2022 acquitted the husband. Though the submission has been made that in case of domestic violence, the wife is also not appearing to impress upon by filing the certified copies of orders but we do not find it appropriate to deliberate on this at this juncture as the same is still pending. Eventually the JMFC on 12.03.2022 acquitted the husband. Though the submission has been made that in case of domestic violence, the wife is also not appearing to impress upon by filing the certified copies of orders but we do not find it appropriate to deliberate on this at this juncture as the same is still pending. However, with respect to acquittal in criminal case, the Supreme Court in Rani Narasimha Sastry vs. Rani Suneela Rani 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1595 has observed that when a prosecution was launched against the husband on a complaint made by the wife u/s 498-A of IPC, making serious allegations in which the husband and his family members were constrained to undergo trial, which ultimately resulted into acquittal, then in such a case, it cannot be accepted that no cruelty was meted out to the husband, therefore, he can make a ground for grant of decree of dissolution of marriage u/s 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 10. The legal position as to when a false complaint would amount to cruelty was also examined in Raj Talreja Vs. Kavita Talreja AIR 2017 SC 2138 where the Court held that it is apparent that the wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband, his family members and colleagues, which would definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. 11. Further in a recent decision of Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar (2021) 3 SCC 742 the Supreme Court has held that in case where the wife's irresponsible allegations affect the career and reputation of her husband irreparably, that conduct on her part constitutes mental cruelty and it would be difficult to expect condonation of such conduct by the affected party. 12. Applying the aforesaid legal position in the instant case, copy of the charge sheet filed in criminal case would show that though the wife chose to make complaint against the husband, but she remained absent on as many as 36 times when the case is taken up for evidence of respondent witness that eventually resulted into acquittal. Therefore, the necessary inference can be drawn that after the report, the wife was not actually interested to prosecute the complaint but for some reason or the other, the criminal case came to be adjourned from time to time for want of evidence. Therefore, the necessary inference can be drawn that after the report, the wife was not actually interested to prosecute the complaint but for some reason or the other, the criminal case came to be adjourned from time to time for want of evidence. This Court also cannot ignore the rigor of pendency of criminal trial against a person wherein his attendance is required on the dates to be so fixed and a person may be required to sit for the entire day in the Court and at the end, if the case is adjourned for want of witnesses then in such a case, the physical and mental cruelty suffered by him cannot be ignored. When it was at the behest of the wife then we cannot also ignore the practical aspect of this issue and accordingly we hold that the report made by wife u/s 294 & 323 of IPC when eventually ended with acquittal due to absence of witnesses at the behest of wife despite there being 36 hearings, it would lead to show that cruelty was committed to the husband and the conduct on the part of wife constitutes a mental cruelty. 13. Further more, during the course of hearing, a certified copy of the order dated 25.01.2018 passed in Case No.702/2016 which was filed by the wife was placed on record. A perusal of it would show that the wife has filed an application for judicial separation wherein certain allegations were levelled against the husband and his family members. The said order recorded the averments made in the application filed by wife u/s 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which would show that she was subjected to torture and again continued with the matrimonial ties. The husband at the same time has stated that his wife left the matrimonial home since July 2016. In the meanwhile, the criminal cases filed by the wife resulted in acquittal. Therefore, it would show that the overall intention of the parties is writ large that they cannot live together. 14. The husband at the same time has stated that his wife left the matrimonial home since July 2016. In the meanwhile, the criminal cases filed by the wife resulted in acquittal. Therefore, it would show that the overall intention of the parties is writ large that they cannot live together. 14. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that filing of false criminal case which culminated into acquittal would also amount to cruelty and since the husband and wife are living apart since 2016 and as per the intention of the wife, there is no chances of re-union as she herself filed an application for judicial separation, no purpose would be served to get the matrimonial ties alive. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the marital relations between the appellant and respondent have come to an end and the appellant/husband is entitled to get a decree of divorce. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The marriage held between the parties on 04.2.2013 is dissolved. A decree be drawn accordingly.