The High Court of Jharkhand set aside the order of the family court holding the wife guilty of cruelty and desertion and granted a decree of divorce in favor of the husband and held that the solemnization of a second marriage by the husband was a sufficient cause apart from other reasons not to return back to her matrimonial house and it was apparent from the evidence that the opposite party did not leave her matrimonial house on her own volition and her evidence indicates her willingness to resume her conjugal life with the petitioner.
Brief Facts:
The appellant filed the present appeal against the judgment passed by the family court wherein the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alleging cruelty and desertion for more than four years on the part of the respondent was allowed and a decree of divorce was granted.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that there is no finding arrived at by the learned court below that the respondent was subjected to cruelty the opposite party had deserted her and the marriage had been dissolved only on the basis of evidence of the opposite party without taking into consideration the reason for such evidence and no documents were exhibited by either of the sides but in spite of the same reliance has been placed by the learned court below in the judgment passed. It was further contended that it was the petitioner who had committed cruelty upon the opposite party and had deserted her on account of his solemnizing marriage with another women but these aspects were never appreciated by the learned court below.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent defended the impugned judgment and submitted that making an allegation of torture and demand of dowry by the petitioner and subsequently retracting from the same during her evidence in the complaint petition would make such allegation false and as a natural corollary, it would tantamount to mental cruelty which according to him has been aptly dealt with by the learned court below.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that the case of the petitioner is that the opposite party after her marriage used to misbehave with her in-laws and sometimes would also resort to assault and used to frequently leave her matrimonial house and stay at her parents’ house without any constraints from the side of the petitioner and the respondent and her witnesses on the other hand and primarily focused on the torture meted out to her as well as the demand of dowry for which a complaint case was instituted by the respondent and further that the petitioner had solemnized a second marriage.
The court stated that the solemnization of the second marriage of the petitioner was an admitted fact and the same was accepted by the mother of the petitioner and the witnesses of the opposite party including the opposite party herself have categorically supported the factum of the second marriage of the petitioner. On the issue of cruelty and desertion, the court stated that both the parties had a diametrically opposite stand and it was incumbent therefore upon the learned court below to appreciate the evidence and come to a definite finding instead of adopting a shortcut method which is not validated by effective reasonings.
The court after going through the impugned order stated that none of the parties exhibited any documents but the court below had considered it and even if it was assumed that such document was on record even then the evidence of the opposite party would be inadequate to prove cruelty as the rationale behind such evidence has been explained by the opposite party in her statement and her not supporting the allegation of torture and demand of dowry stems from the conduct and repentance of the petitioner and the court below had not delineated any other circumstances constituting mental cruelty.
On the issue of desertion, the court stated that it was apparent from the evidence of the witnesses the petitioner had solemnized a second marriage which fact has been supported even by the mother of the petitioner and this was a sufficient cause apart from other reasons not to return back to her matrimonial house and the evidence of the opposite party further reveals that she was kept by the petitioner at a different place other than the place where the petitioner was staying which enhances the contention about the petitioner having solemnized a second marriage and it would thus appear that the opposite party did not leave her matrimonial house on her own volition and her evidence indicates her willingness to resume her conjugal life with the petitioner.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal, found the impugned order illegal and set it aside.
Case Title: Khirmani Devi vs Ramesh Mehta
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
Case No.: First Appeal No. 270 of 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
