Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1492 (JHR)

Dhipram Chanda v. Munmun Chandra

2023-12-20

DEEPAK ROSHAN, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2023
JUDGMENT : R. Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2019 (decree signed on 04.04.2019) passed by Sri Satya Prakash Sinha, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 368 of 2015, whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant u/s 27(1) (d) of the Special Marriage Act has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status in the learned court below. 4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had preferred a suit u/s 27(1) (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent (respondent herein), wherein it has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 25.02.2014 before the Marriage Officer, Sub Registry Office at Sakchi as per Hindu customary rites and rituals on 03.03.2014. The petitioner had earlier filed a suit u/s 25 (iii) (b) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for declaring the marriage as void, but the said suit was withdrawn by him on 04.08.2015. It has been stated that after marriage both started residing together as husband and wife where their marriage was consummated. The respondent prior to her marriage was working in T.R.F. Ltd., Burma Mines, Jamshedpur. After the marriage, the couple had gone for honeymoon to Goa and thereafter the petitioner had joined his office on 29.03.2014. The respondent prior to her marriage was aware about the fact that the petitioner has to go out from Jamshedpur for an official tour of fifteen days. The respondent in absence of the petitioner resided at her parental home. It has been stated that while residing with the petitioner and his parents, the respondent started misbehaving with them. The petitioner and his parents had not accepted any amount from the family of the respondent at the time of marriage. At the time of Ashtamangala during evening the respondent convinced the petitioner and his parents and took away all the jewelleries gifted to her at the time of marriage to her parent’s house and on the assurance of the mother of the respondent, the entire jewellery was kept in the bank locker in the name of the respondent. At the time of Ashtamangala during evening the respondent convinced the petitioner and his parents and took away all the jewelleries gifted to her at the time of marriage to her parent’s house and on the assurance of the mother of the respondent, the entire jewellery was kept in the bank locker in the name of the respondent. The respondent left for her job at 6 a.m. and returned at 6 p.m. and it was the mother of the petitioner, who had to cook food and also do all the household work as the respondent did not have the time and she was also disinclined to do the household chores. Each week every Saturday, the respondent went to her parental house directly from office and returned on Sunday night. It has been stated that the respondent is a very arrogant lady having a venomous tongue and is also suspicious by nature. The petitioner and his family members were always commented upon as beggars by the respondent who also used obscene language and insulted him. Even on the date of reception, the respondent had caused a misunderstanding by doubting the character of the petitioner though she later on apologised. The respondent had also given false information that on Saturday’s she visits her parental house at 1 p.m. The respondent had also falsely stated that she was pregnant as the petitioner was aware that the pregnancy test was found to be negative. A false case was instituted against the petitioner by the respondent being G.R. Case No. 2648 of 2014 which was after the matrimonial suit filed by the petitioner. It has also been stated that false information was given to the employer of the petitioner maligning him and ultimately, the petitioner had to resign from his job on 30.04.2105 and at present the petitioner is jobless. The respondent had never carried out her marital obligations and left her matrimonial house on 18.07.2014. 5. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations levelled against her have been denied. It has been stated that since the date of marriage the respondent properly behaved herself and has given respect to her in-laws and husband. After the marriage was solemnised, the mother of the petitioner took all the ornaments with a plea that for safety purposes, she will keep all the jewelleries in the bank locker. It has been stated that since the date of marriage the respondent properly behaved herself and has given respect to her in-laws and husband. After the marriage was solemnised, the mother of the petitioner took all the ornaments with a plea that for safety purposes, she will keep all the jewelleries in the bank locker. The respondent was earlier a casual employee of T.R.F. Ltd. She was never allowed by the parents of the petitioner to enter the kitchen and also was not provided proper food and had given a wrong information to the petitioner that the respondent is not assisting them in a domestic work. The petitioner regularly consumes liquor and under the influence of liquor, he used to assault her mercilessly. The efforts made by the respondent to lead a happy conjugal life in spite of all odds did not bear fruit. It has been stated that on 20.07.2014 it was detected that the respondent has conceived and when the news was shared with the petitioner he started putting pressure upon the respondent to terminate the pregnancy. When the respondent objected the petitioner became violent and hit her on the stomach on 01.08.2014. However, despite all odds, the respondent gave birth to a male child on 22.03.2015 out of the conjugal relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent tried her best to resume a happy conjugal life, but she failed and thereafter she had filed a criminal case in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons including the petitioner u/s 489A I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. The petitioner was taken into custody in the said case and in spite of efforts at a reconciliation, the petitioner was adamant and he refused to keep the respondent in his house. The respondent though is still ready and willing to stay at her matrimonial house. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication:- I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? II. Whether the petitioner has got valid cause of action for the suit? III. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty? IV. Whether the petitioner husband has suffered cruelty from the hands of the respondent wife? V. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief or reliefs claimed in the suit? III. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty? IV. Whether the petitioner husband has suffered cruelty from the hands of the respondent wife? V. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief or reliefs claimed in the suit? 7. The petitioner has examined three witnesses in support of his case including himself. 8. PW-1 Dhipram Chanda is the petitioner who has stated that his marriage was solemnised on 28.02.2014 before the Marriage Officer, Sub Registry Office, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. The marriage with the respondent was an arranged marriage. Earlier, he had filed a suit for declaring the marriage as void vide Matrimonial Suit No. 354/2014 which however was withdrawn by him on 04.08.2015. After the petitioner and the respondent returned from their honeymoon trip, the respondent started misbehaving with his parents. The respondent is an arrogant lady who has a suspicious nature and she used to comment that he and his parents have the status of beggars. The respondent also commented that she cannot tolerate him as well as his parents and always insulted him. During weekends she regularly visited her parental house. Though the respondent claimed that she was pregnant, but the test was found to be negative. She had filed a criminal case against him after receiving notice in Matrimonial Suit No. 354/2014. She had also levelled false allegations against him of consuming liquor and trying to terminate the foetus which has damaged his reputation in the society. The respondent had furnished false information to his employer, as a result of which, his services were terminated and at present he does not have any job. Due to the criminal case instituted by the respondent, he had to surrender and he remained in custody for twenty five days. The respondent had left her matrimonial house on 12.07.2014 on her own. He has stated that his marital life with the respondent is in tatters and it would not be possible for him to reside with the respondent under the same roof. In cross examination he has deposed that prior to the marriage he had gathered knowledge about the respondent and her family and on being satisfied, he had agreed to the marriage. During the honeymoon, the relationship with the respondent was not good though the same has not been mentioned in his plaint. In cross examination he has deposed that prior to the marriage he had gathered knowledge about the respondent and her family and on being satisfied, he had agreed to the marriage. During the honeymoon, the relationship with the respondent was not good though the same has not been mentioned in his plaint. He had filed an informatory petition on 28.06.2014 as he was anticipating that the respondent may institute a criminal case against him. He had not mentioned in the plaint the efforts made by him to pacify and bring back the respondent to her matrimonial house. It is a fact that he does not want to enter into a compromise with the respondent in the present suit as the respondent is still desirous of sending him to jail. He does not know as to whether he has a child out of the wedlock with the respondent or not though the respondent claims that they have a child. He has denied that after the retirement of his father-in-law, his parents had demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs in cash and an Indigo car from him. Even if the respondent is desirous of staying with him, he is not inclined to stay with her. P.W.-2 Tapan Kumar Chanda is the father of the petitioner who has reiterated what has been stated by P.W. 1. In cross-examination he has deposed that the marriage was solemnised after he was satisfied with the credentials of the respondents. It is a fact that after returning from honeymoon, his son had submitted an informatory petition with his consent, as the respondent had misbehaved with his son. He does not know as to whether he has a grandson or not. His son is correct in denying that he is the father of the child. His son is willing to undergo a DNA test if the respondent is agreeable to undergo such test for the child. Even if the respondent wants to stay in her matrimonial house without any condition, he is not willing to keep her. P.W.-3 Mrinal Kanti Shaw is acquainted with both the parties. He has stated that the marital ties between the petitioner and the respondent has completely broken down and it is impossible for the petitioner to lead a conjugal life with the respondent. P.W.-3 Mrinal Kanti Shaw is acquainted with both the parties. He has stated that the marital ties between the petitioner and the respondent has completely broken down and it is impossible for the petitioner to lead a conjugal life with the respondent. The respondent had instituted a criminal case against the petitioner and his old and ailing parents and after surrender, the petitioner has remained in custody for a month. The petitioner has also lost his job and at present he is unemployed. The respondent is a rude and an arrogant lady and she had caused immense pain and agony to the petitioner by virtue of her behaviour. In cross-examination he has deposed that the petitioner is his childhood friend. He does not know the activities of the respondent inside the house. Whatever has been stated by him is based on the disclosures made by the petitioner. 9. The respondent has examined three witnesses in support of her case. R.W. 1 Munmun Chanda is the respondent who has stated about her marriage solemnised with the petitioner on 03.03.2014. After marriage, she went to her matrimonial house, where after 2-3 days, the petitioner had taken her ATM card while his mother had taken all her jewelleries. She was taunted for bringing less dowry and a demand of Rs. 5 Lakhs and an Indigo car was made and due to non-fulfilment of the said demand, she was subjected to mental and physical torture. In the meantime, she became pregnant, but the petitioner asked her to terminate her pregnancy and in order to save herself, she came back to her parents’ house. She had made efforts to return to her matrimonial house, but she was not welcomed and was abused and tortured. On 01.08.2014, the petitioner all of a sudden came to her house and assaulted her brutally in order to terminate her pregnancy. She was ultimately compelled to institute an F.I.R. being Telco P.S. Case No. 374 of 2014 and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted u/s 498A, 406 and 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3/4 D.P. Act. On 22.03.2015, she gave birth to a male child, but the petitioner or his parents did not come to see the child and instead lodged a suit for declaring the marriage as nullity which however was subsequently withdrawn. On 22.03.2015, she gave birth to a male child, but the petitioner or his parents did not come to see the child and instead lodged a suit for declaring the marriage as nullity which however was subsequently withdrawn. She had tried her best to restore conjugal relationship with the petitioner, but he refused any advances made for reconciliation. In cross examination she has expressed her desire to stay with the petitioner. She had not made any complaint to Kadma P.S. or Telco P.S. against her in-laws for not allowing to enter her matrimonial house, when she had gone along with her 1-1 ½ month old child. During the stay at her matrimonial house, she had not lodged any case against her in-laws. On account of a case instituted by her u/s 498A I.P.C., the petitioner had remained in jail custody for about 2025 days. Neither any injury report was prepared nor any case was lodged by her on account of the incident which had occurred on 01.08.2014. She has denied that she had voluntarily left her matrimonial house on 12.07.2014. R.W. 2 Bela Some is the maternal aunt of the respondent who has reiterated what has been stated by R.W.-1. In cross examination she has deposed that she had met the petitioner only once at the time of marriage. It is a fact that the petitioner was in judicial custody in a case instituted u/s 498A I.P.C. R.W. 3 Kavita Sen is the elder sister of the respondent whose sworn statement is similar to that of R.W. 1 and R.W. 2. In cross examination she has deposed that the respondent works as a casual labour in T.R.F. She is a witness in the case instituted u/s 498A I.P.C. 10. It has been submitted by Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (appellant herein) that the impugned judgment is perverse considering the fact that no reasonings have been assigned while deciding Issue No. III and IV against the petitioner. It has been submitted that the respondent had stayed at her matrimonial house for intermittent periods and whenever she stayed the parents of the petitioner were subjected to her vile tongue. The petitioner has also expressed a doubt regarding the paternity of the child. It has been submitted that the respondent had stayed at her matrimonial house for intermittent periods and whenever she stayed the parents of the petitioner were subjected to her vile tongue. The petitioner has also expressed a doubt regarding the paternity of the child. It has been submitted that the petitioner was not spared by the respondent in his office as well as complaints were made by the respondent and ultimately he had to wash his hands off his job. It has been submitted that the acts of the respondents clearly constitute mental cruelty and in such circumstances, the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2019 be set aside. 11. Countering such submissions Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that it was the respondent who was subjected to mental cruelty on account of the unfounded doubt of the petitioner over the character of the respondent. It has been submitted that the criminal case instituted by the respondent against the petitioner would further indicate the torture committed upon the respondent by the petitioner. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the lower court records. 13. Issue No. III and IV form the nucleus of the suit as they relate to the cruelty alleged by the petitioner against the respondent. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 25.02.2014 before the Marriage Officer, Sub Registry Office at Sakchi. Just a few months after marriage, the petitioner had filed a suit for declaring the marriage as void being Matrimonial Suit No. 354/2014 which however was withdrawn on 04.08.2015. Immediately thereafter on 12.08.2015, the suit which is the subject matter of the present appeal was filed u/s 27(1) (d) of the Special Marriage Act for dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner therefore appears to be desperate in getting his marital ties with the respondent come to an end. Be that as it may in the present case, we have to explore as to whether the petitioner has been able to successfully demonstrate the grounds which have been highlighted by him seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent. 14. In Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 it has been held as follows:- “6. Treating the petitioner with cruelty is a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. 14. In Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73 it has been held as follows:- “6. Treating the petitioner with cruelty is a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act but in relation to matrimonial matters it is contemplated as a conduct of such type which endangers the living of the petitioner with the respondent. Cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or to have injured health. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. “Cruelty”, therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other. In the instant case both the trial court as well as the High Court have found on facts that the wife had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty attributed to the respondent. Concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts cannot be disturbed by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise also the averments made in the petition and the evidence led in support thereof clearly show that the allegations, even if held to have been proved, would only show the sensitivity of the appellant with respect to the conduct of the respondent which cannot be termed more than ordinary wear and tear of the family life.” 15. Otherwise also the averments made in the petition and the evidence led in support thereof clearly show that the allegations, even if held to have been proved, would only show the sensitivity of the appellant with respect to the conduct of the respondent which cannot be termed more than ordinary wear and tear of the family life.” 15. In the present case what would transpire even according to the version of the petitioner is that the initial days post marriage was blissful as the marriage was consummated and the couple had also gone for a honeymoon. As per the petitioner, the situation changed after a few days and the instances given by him constituting cruelty are : a. The respondent had started misbehaving with the parents of the petitioner. b. The Jewelleries gifted at the time of the marriage were taken away by the respondent and were kept at her bank locker. c. The respondent did not engage herself in any domestic chores including preparation of food. d. The respondent was arrogant and apart from having a venomous tongue was also suspicious in nature. e. The respondent used to humiliate the petitioner and his family members by calling them beggars. f. The respondent had given a false information that she was pregnant, but the petitioner knew that the pregnancy test was found to be negative. 16. The respondent has countered such allegation by denying the same and supplementing such denial with instances which according to her is conclusive to the effect that it was the respondent who was at the receiving end of such torture committed by the petitioner. 17. The evidence of the petitioner (P.W.-1) does not give any indication that he had tried to make efforts to save the marriage or had tried to convince the respondent of her duties and responsibilities. Most of the allegations levelled by the petitioner are innocuous in nature and are more of a normal wear and tear which generally occurs in a matrimonial relationship. The respondent is a working lady and if what has been stated by the petitioner is construed to be true, her disinclination in getting involved in domestic chores is understandable. Most of the allegations levelled by the petitioner are innocuous in nature and are more of a normal wear and tear which generally occurs in a matrimonial relationship. The respondent is a working lady and if what has been stated by the petitioner is construed to be true, her disinclination in getting involved in domestic chores is understandable. The allegation of cruelty seems to be the other way around as the respondent on account of the torture committed upon her had to resort to filing a criminal case against the petitioner and as a consequence the petitioner had to remain in custody for about a month. The petitioner has also impliedly denied the paternity of the child as in his evidence as P.W. 1 he has shown his ignorance about the existence of the child though at the same time, he has come to know about the same from the respondent who had disclosed about such fact to him. The father of the petitioner who has been examined as P.W. 2 has also denied that the petitioner has fathered the child. 18. The above noted discussions viewed in the background of the observations made in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (Supra) would lead to a conclusion that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove Issue Nos. III and IV which have rightly been answered against him. 19. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2019 (decree signed on 04.04.2019) passed by Sri Satya Prakash Sinha, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 368 of 2015 and consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.