Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 970 (JHR)

Safali Kumari W/o Roshan Kumar v. Roshan Kumar S/o Shri Kailash Prasad

2024-11-27

ARUN KUMAR RAI, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2024
JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Baibhaw Gahlot, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28-08-2019 (decree signed on 03-09-2019) passed by Sri Peeyush Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 94 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib)&(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has been dissolved, subject to payment of permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. 4. The petitioner/husband (respondent herein) had preferred a suit under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib)&(1-A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife (appellant herein) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 02-06-2013 at Police Line Colony, Near Nawabganj (Hazaribag) as per Hindu rites and customs and after marriage they started residing at Bihar Colony, Chas. Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born. It has been stated that the respondent did not want to reside at her matrimonial house and she always used to quarrel with the petitioner and his family members. The respondent is a lady of cruel nature and she used to leave her matrimonial house without the permission of the petitioner or her in- laws and when the petitioner objected, the respondent quarreled with him. The well wishers and relations of both the sides tried to settle the dispute, but the same did not yield any positive result. It has been stated that on 07-05-2015, the respondent left her matrimonial house along with her child and also took away cash and ornaments inspite of the objection raised by her in-laws. On 07-03-2016, the petitioner, his father and other respectable persons had sought permission from the parents of the respondent for vidai, but they refused. It has been stated that on 07-05-2015, the respondent left her matrimonial house along with her child and also took away cash and ornaments inspite of the objection raised by her in-laws. On 07-03-2016, the petitioner, his father and other respectable persons had sought permission from the parents of the respondent for vidai, but they refused. The petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 being Original Suit No. 158/2016 which was disposed of on 19-01-2017 on the basis of a settlement, but the respondent did not return to her matrimonial house. The respondent has filed a criminal case being CP Case No. 1071/2016 which, on being forwarded to the Police Station, resulted in institution of Sadar P.S. Case No. 844/2016 but after investigation, F.R.T. was submitted by the Police. The respondent had also filed a matrimonial case being Matrimonial Case No. 76/2017 which was disposed of on the basis of a mediation on 15-12-2017 as it was decided that after kharmas the respondent would come back to her matrimonial house. However, the respondent refused to come back and resume her conjugal relationship with the petitioner. The respondent has continuously deserted the petitioner since 07-05- 2015 and inspite of making efforts to resume the marital ties, the respondent has shown her disinclination to continue with such relationship. The marriage is dead for all practical purposes and any attempt at a reconciliation would be futile. 5. The respondent, on being noticed, had appeared but despite several appearances she did not file a written statement and ultimately was debarred from filing written statement vide order dated 18-08-2018. 6. Based on the materials available on record, the following issues were framed for adjudication: i. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? ii. Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit? iii. Whether the respondent, after solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty and on the basis of which the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent under the provisions of section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? iv. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for? 7. iii. Whether the respondent, after solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty and on the basis of which the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent under the provisions of section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955? iv. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for? 7. The petitioner has examined as many as four witnesses in support of his case: P.W.1 Banshi Ram is acquainted with both the sides and he has stated about the solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on 02-06-2013. He has stated that the respondent is a cruel lady, who used to quarrel with her husband and parents-in- law and never gave them due respect. The couple has a child who at present stays with the respondent. The respondent always used to create pressure upon the petitioner and his relatives to permit her to go to her parents’ house and sometimes she left her matrimonial house without any permission. Attempts were made by the well- wishers of both the sides to restore normalcy in the relationship but the same was of no avail. He has stated that on 07-05-2015 the respondent along with her son and her valuables as well as belongings left her matrimonial house without any reason. On 07-03-2016, the petitioner, his father and other well-wishers had gone to the house of the respondent and requested her parents to give her vidai but such request was flatly refused. The petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and inspite of a compromise effected in the said suit the respondent never came back to her matrimonial house. The respondent had also lodged a dowry related case in which after investigation final form was submitted. A case of maintenance was also instituted by the respondent in which the dispute was settled and it was decided that on 15-01-2018, the respondent will go to her matrimonial house along with the petitioner and will resume her marital ties but in spite of the best efforts made by the petitioner the respondent flatly refused to come back to her matrimonial house. This witness was not cross-examined by the respondent and hence was discharged. P.W.2 Ram Prakash has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1. He was also not cross-examined as the respondent did not appear. This witness was not cross-examined by the respondent and hence was discharged. P.W.2 Ram Prakash has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1. He was also not cross-examined as the respondent did not appear. P.W. 3 Ravi Shankar Kumar has stated similar to that of PW1 and PW2. The respondent did not appear to cross-examine this witness and hence he was discharged. P.W.4 Roshan Kumar is the petitioner who has supported what has been stated in his application for dissolution of marriage and the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. The respondent did not turn up to cross-examine this witness and he was also discharged. 8. It has been submitted by Mr. Awanish Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent (appellant herein) that the learned trial court has accepted the version of the petitioner, though it is clear that no case of cruelty or desertion is made out against the respondent. He has submitted that so far as cruelty is concerned, what has been depicted by the petitioner is the normal wear and tear of a marital life and there is no apprehension on the part of the petitioner that staying with the respondent will cause him harm. It has been submitted that the petitioner has failed to prove that there has been a willful abandonment of the petitioner on the part of the respondent. 9. Mr. Baibhaw Gahlot, learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent herein) has submitted that the respondent used to quarrel and misbehave with the petitioner and his family members and, without any reason, had left her matrimonial house. The respondent had instituted a dowry related criminal case and the falsity of the allegations have been vindicated by the fact that final report was submitted by the Police. Such baseless allegations would come within the purview of “cruelty”. Moreover, the respondent though had appeared but neither did she file a written statement nor did she cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 11. Issue No. (iii) is the pre-dominant issue in the suit which constitutes cruelty as well as desertion. The respondent had appeared in the suit but despite several opportunities did not file the written statement and subsequently she was debarred from filing the same. 11. Issue No. (iii) is the pre-dominant issue in the suit which constitutes cruelty as well as desertion. The respondent had appeared in the suit but despite several opportunities did not file the written statement and subsequently she was debarred from filing the same. The respondent also did not take any efforts to cross-examine the witnesses of the petitioner. It has been alleged by the petitioner that after marriage the respondent had misbehaved and quarreled with the petitioner as well as his parents on a regular basis and she also used to frequent her parent’s house sometimes without even seeking permission from the petitioner or his parents. The petitioner had preferred a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 but the same was disposed of on the basis of a settlement in which it was agreed upon that after 3 months the respondent will come back to her matrimonial house along with her child where she will be given proper respect and will also be maintained. The settlement document has been marked as exhibit 01/ 01. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of the settlement, the respondent did not comply with her part of undertaking which has also not been refuted by the respondent. Exhibit 02/01 is the certified copy of the final report of Sadar( Lohsingna) P.S. Case No. 844/2016. This was a dowry related case lodged by the respondent against the petitioner in which after investigation final report was submitted showing lack of evidence. This, apart from the reluctance on the part of the respondent to adhere to the compromise would further enhance the claim of the petitioner that he was subjected to cruelty. 12. “Cruelty” has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act but has evolved with the passage of time and has an ever expanding horizon based on the facts of each case. Making false allegations which defame a spouse in society would tantamount to the arising of a suspicion in the mind of such spouse of creating an environment of mistrust and threat from the offending spouse and such factor will definitely come within the realm of cruelty. Making false allegations which defame a spouse in society would tantamount to the arising of a suspicion in the mind of such spouse of creating an environment of mistrust and threat from the offending spouse and such factor will definitely come within the realm of cruelty. The petitioner has been able to illuminate his intention of restoring normalcy in his matrimonial life with the respondent as the suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would profess, but such efforts have proved futile and the adamant conduct of the respondent in refusing to re-establish such ties would also be an act of cruelty against the petitioner. So far as desertion is concerned, the petitioner has been able to prove that the respondent had withdrawn from the society of the petitioner without his permission and without any reasonable cause since 07-05-2015 and all attempts made by the petitioner to rekindle such relationship faltered at the altar of the respondent on account of her refusal to have any connection with the petitioner. Issue No. (iii) therefore, has rightly been answered against the respondent and in favour of the petitioner and we affirm the same. 13. Thus, in view of the findings recorded by us, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-08-2019 (decree signed on 03-09-2019) passed by Sri Peeyush Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 94/2018 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal. 14. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.