Jharkhand High Court
Leena Sinha vs Dr. Siddharth Sinha on 9 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 87 of 2018
Leena Sinha --- --- Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Siddharth Sinha --- --- Opp. Party
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ratnaker Bhengra
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate
---
08 / 09.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for condonation of
delay of 74 days in preferring the instant Review Petition made through I.A.
No.779/2019.
2. On consideration of the explanation urged and submission of the parties,
delay is condoned. I.A. No. 779/2019 stands disposed of.
3. The appellant-wife is the Review Petitioner. Her appeal against the
judgment of dissolution of marriage dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned
Family Court, Hazaribag in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 18/2015 was dismissed
by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 02.08.2018 passed in First Appeal
No. 107/2017, inter-alia holding as under:
"16. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for
the parties at length; gone through the relevant material evidence
on record as relied upon by them and also the impugned
judgment. We have also taken note of the judgments of the Apex
Court and this Court cited by learned counsel for the parties. We
have elaborately discussed the pleadings of the parties and the
evidence brought on record by them. Culled out therefrom, it is
apparent that immediately after the solemnization of marriage on
24.6.2011, parties lived together during their Honeymoon period
at Darjeeling and at Pune till 12.7.2011 or 27.7.2011, when the
appellant came from Pune to stay with her parents at Patratu.
According to her statement, she went to Patna to undertake study
and did not show any overt act on her part to return to her
matrimonial home for three years till 18.4.2014. For a newly
wedded wife, to remain away from the matrimonial home, for
such a long period without any basis or reasonable cause in itself
is worth explanation on her part which she has failed to justify.
On the contrary, the husband took steps for restitution of the
marriage by filing Matrimonial Suit No. 38 of 2013. Mediation
failed perhaps, also because of non-appearance of the appellant on
few dates which she has tried to explain on account of her illness.
However, at the instance of the learned Family Court, the parties
united on 18.4.2014 when the husband went to bring her back
from her paternal house. The suit was withdrawn on 24.4.2014 in
happy circumstances but it further appears that she went back to
her parents' house which compelled the husband to institute a suit
for divorce being MTS No. 98 of 2014 on 28.4.2014. This suit
was again compromised on the initiatives of the respectable
members of the locality on 22.7.2014 (Ext.-5). This resolution led
to the return of the appellant to the matrimonial home on
24.6.2014 but the stay remained short till 4.12.2014 only. Parties
are on contest on the issue whether the marriage was
consummated during that period or not. Be that as it may, the
appellant left the matrimonial home on 4.12.2014 and instituted a
criminal case before Mahila Police Station, Hazaribagh against
the husband and his parents. She again instituted a complaint case
bearing no. 808 of 2015 alleging demand of dowry and cruelty in
marriage under section 498A of the IPC and also the provisions of
the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, both the cases were found
false as final form was submitted and accepted by the learned
court. Ext.-9 &10 have been adduced in support thereof.
Institution of such false cases have been treated as acts of mental
cruelty in the judgments rendered by the Apex Court such as in
the case of K. Srinivas Rao Versus D.A. Deepa reported in
(2013)5 SCC 226 para- 16 and in the case of K. Srinivas Versus
K. Sunita reported in (2014)16 SCC 34, para-3.
It is profitable to extract the opinion of the Apex Court in the case
of K. Srinivas Rao Versus D.A. Deepa, reported in (2013)5
SCC 226 at para 16, which reads as under:
"16. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty
noted in Samar Ghosh, we could add a few more. Making
unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the
spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of
complaints or issuing notices or news items which may
have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of
the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in
the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case,
amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse."
Reliance may also be placed in the case of K. Srinivas
Versus K. Sunita reported in (2014)16 SCC 34.
17. Institution of such vexatious false cases on false allegation
definitely has an effect of entailing mental cruelty upon the other
spouse. In the present case, evidence on record also shows that
the petitioner-husband had gone into depression and was unable
to attend his duties as a doctor for some period of time. The
relationship between the parties, therefore, appears to have
become so sour that it was unlikely to be revived. All emotional
bounds between the parties have also dried up on account of such
broken relationship. The learned Family Court found these
instances as acts of mental cruelty, which we do not find any
reason to disturb. The parties are not in a position to lead a happy
married life in such circumstances. The learned Family Court,
however, rightly answered the issue of desertion against the
petitioner as the minimum mandatory period of two years
separation in terms of Section13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, was not satisfied. The discussion on the material evidence on
record, in the light of the pleadings of the parties, does not make
out any grounds to interfere with the findings of cruelty rendered
by the learned Family Court.
18. On the totality of facts and circumstances and for the
reasons recorded herein above, we do not find any merit in the
appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. As prayed by the learned
counsel for the appellant we leave it to the appellant to invoke the
provision of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to
approach the Family Court for grant of alimony as there are no
such sufficient material pleadings or evidence on record to render
any finding thereupon. Decree Accordingly."
4. The only ground for review of the impugned judgment raised by the
Review Petitioner is an order dated 05.12.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No.
58/2017 (Leena Sinha versus Dr. Siddharth Sinha), whereby the learned
Sessions Judge, Hazaribag set aside the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereby the Protest petition-cum-Complaint
petition filed on behalf of the complainant Leena Sinha against the opposite
party-husband Dr. Siddharth Sinha in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No.
1212/2015, was dismissed.
5. When the appeal was decided on 02.08.2018, the Appellate Court took
note of Exhibit-9 and 10 submitted in respect of the criminal cases instituted by
her. These exhibits were Final Form submitted by the police to the effect that
criminal case instituted in Mahila Police Station by the wife / Review Petitioner
against her husband and his parents under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code
alleging assault, was false. The Review petitioner-wife despite being aware of
the order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in
Criminal Revision No. 58/2017, preferred by her, did not bring it to the notice
of the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court after consideration of the
respective cases instituted between the parties including the criminal cases
instituted by the wife against her husband, arrived at a conclusion that the
emotional bounds between the parties have dried up on account of such broken
relationship. The learned Family Court had found these instances as acts of
mental cruelty which the Appellate Court did not find any reason to disturb.
Accordingly, appeal was dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-husband submits that Criminal
Miscellaneous petition being Cr. M.P. No.1550/ 2019 has been filed under
section 482 of the Cr. P.C by the husband against the order dated 05.12.2017
passed in Criminal Revision No. 58/2017. The same is pending before this
Court. He submits that the matter relating to rejection of her protest petition has
not yet attained finality as such.
7. The Review-Petitioner i.e. the appellant-wife has not been able to make
out any grounds available under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure as
there are no errors apparent on the face of the record. Mistake of the parties
cannot be a ground for review. Mistake of the court can be a ground for review.
The Review Petitioner has not been able to make out a case that despite due
diligence, the order dated 05.12.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No. 58/2017,
could not be produced before the Appellate Court. In such circumstances, no
grounds are made out for review of the impugned judgment. Instant Review
petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending I.A. is closed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J)
Ranjeet/
