Baleshwar Prasad Verma vs Sharaswati Devi
2023 Latest Caselaw 2413 Jhar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          First Appeal No. 301 of 2019
                                  ----

Baleshwar Prasad Verma, Son of Tuplal Mahto, Resident of Village-Balgo, P.O. P.S. Birni, District-Giridih. .....Appellant Versus Sharaswati Devi, W/o Baleshwar Prasad Verma, Daughter of Tulsi Mahto, Resident of Village-Balgo, P.O. & P.S. Birni, District-Giridih. ....Respondent

--------

Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

--------

            For the Appellant       : Mr. Gaurav Abhishekh, Advocate
            For the Respondent       : None
                                    --------
15/21/07/2023         Heard Mr. Gaurav Abhishekh, learned counsel for the appellant. No one
            appears on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 18.6.2019, passed by Shri Suresh Chandra Jaiswal, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Original Suit No. 166 of 2014, by which the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of marriage has been dismissed.

3. The appellant had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage under section 13 (1)(i) and (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, in which it has been stated that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent as per Hindu Rites & Customs in the year 2009. It has been stated that the appellant was a widower and there were no issues with his first wife. The respondent was a divorcee who had an eight year old daughter from her first marriage who stayed with the respondent. On account of the wedlock with the appellant and the respondent a daughter was born who was named Pushpa Kumari. After the birth of the daughter, the appellant underwent vasectomy in order to give proper education to his daughter. It has been stated that the appellant used to work outside for earning his livelihood and when after two and half years of his daughter's birth he went outside, the respondent did not fulfil her family obligations and the appellant tried his best to make her understand her duties. It has been stated that the respondent had earlier instituted a criminal case against her first husband, for which he had to go to jail and lastly she entered into a compromise and took a substantial amount from her first husband. The appellant was in Bangalore from 18.6.2023 to 7.6.2014 where he worked as a tipper driver in a private company and during this period, the respondent started staying outside, as a result of which, she conceived. When the appellant returned from Bangalore and questioned her about the pregnancy he was threatened that he will be falsely implicated in a dowry related case. On account of the conduct of the respondent, the appellant started suffering mentally and ultimately he filed the suit for dissolution of marriage.

4. On being noticed, the respondent appeared and filed her written statement in which she has denied the allegations levelled against her by the appellant. She has also denied to have any knowledge about the appellant having undergone vasectomy.

She has stated that when the appellant had gone to Bangalore in the year 2013 she was already pregnant and the appellant was well aware about the same. She had never stayed outside her matrimonial house and even now she is staying at the same place. In the year 2014, she had given birth to a son named Krishna. The respondent had suffered mentally and physically on account of her character assassination by her husband.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:-

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the respondent had voluntary sexual intercourse with another person apart from her husband?

(iii) Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty?

(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to dissolution of his marriage by a decree of divorce?

(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief or reliefs?

6. The appellant has produced three witnesses including himself in support of his case while the respondent has not examined any witness.

P.W-1-Baijnath Prasad Verma has deposed that after the birth of her daughter, the appellant had undergone vasectomy at Surya Clinic Hazaribagh. He has stated that after the birth of her daughter, the appellant had gone to Bangalore to earn his living. The wife of the appellant started misbehaving with her inlaws and without informing anyone she used to spend hours outside her house and when this conduct was objected to by her inlaws she used to subject them to abuses. The appellant also used to make her understand through phone but of no avail. During the stay of the appellant outside, the respondent became pregnant. He has stated that when the appellant confronted the respondent she and her family members threatened to implicate him in a false case.

In cross-examination, he has accepted the fact that even after undergoing vasectomy, children may be born. The respondent had never instituted a case through she had threatened of doing so. The respondent along with her children still resides in her inlaws house. He has stated that during Holidays and in festivals, the appellant does come to his house.

P.W-2-Tuplal Mahto is the father of the appellant who has deposed about the marriage solemnized in the year 2009 and the birth of a daughter. In 2012, the appellant had undergone vasectomy, which was a success. After the appellant left for Bangalore for work, the respondent used to go outside at her whims and on objection raised she used to issue threats. After almost one year, when the appellant returned home in 2013-14 he found the respondent pregnant and she evaded any question relating to the same. Later on, the respondent gave birth to a boy.

In cross examination, he has deposed that the respondent is staying at her inlaws place right from the time of her marriage. He has stated that his son had returned from Bangalore after 1-1/2 years.

P.W-3-Baleshwar Prasad Verma is the appellant himself who has stated that his marriage was solemnized with Saraswati Devi in the year 2009. Out of the wedlock, a daughter was born. He had undergone vasectomy in Surya Clinic, Hazaribagh in the year 2012, which was successfully done. He had left for Bangalore on 16.6.2013 and till 7.3.2014 he was on duty. When he returned back home, Saraswati Devi was at her father place and she was pregnant.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had constructed a house adjacent to his house where Saraswati Devi resides with her children. He used to come to his house after 8-9 months.

7. As noted above, the respondent did not adduce any evidence.

8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the witnesses clearly indicate as to how the appellant has been treated with cruelty. It has further been submitted that the respondent had voluntarily entered into a sexual relationship with another person and she conceived, which fact clearly emerges from the evidences of the witnesses. Learned counsel adds that the respondent did not examine herself or any other witness on her behalf to rebut the evidence led against her. It has also been submitted that the impugned judgment is perverse on the face of it and the learned court below has not considered the evidence in its totality.

9. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the Lower Court Records. 10 The dominant issues for determination are issue Nos. (ii) and (iii). Both have been answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

11. So far as issue No. (ii) is concerned, the allegation of infidelity against the respondent could not be proved by the appellant. Unfounded and baseless allegations have been levelled that the respondent had entered into a sexual relationship with another person other than her husband. No person has been named with whom there was a sexual intimacy with the respondent. One of the features of the allegations seems to be a vasectomy operation undergone by the appellant and in spite of the same, the respondent had conceived. If at all such operation was undergone by the appellant, the same could easily have been substantiated by producing documentary evidence.

12. P.W-1 and P.W-3 ( appellant) have stated about the said operation having been carried out at Surya Clinic, Hazaribagh though the said statements seems to be an attempt to eke a doubt over the character of the respondent. The appellant has also stressed upon the fact that he was in Bangalore for work for

a considerable length of time and in the meantime the respondent had become pregnant thus casting aspirations upon her fidelity. These facts seem to have been contradicted by P.W-1 who has stated about the respondent residing at her inlaws place and the appellant during the relevant time used to frequently come to his house during Holidays and at the time of festivals. The learned court below on consideration of the above facts have rightly answered issue no. (ii) against the appellant.

13. Issue No. (iii) is related to cruelty and the only ground taken seems to be the threat issued by the respondent in implicating the appellant and his family members in a false case on being questioned about her pregnancy.

14. From the evidence, it appears to be an admitted fact that no case was instituted by the respondent. The evidence of the appellant and his witnesses failed to signify any instance which could be construed to be a mental or physical cruelty and this issue has also been rightly answered against the appellant. We therefore come to conclusion that no cause for inference in the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.6.2019 is made out and consequently this appeal is dismissed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)

(Deepak Roshan, J) Rakesh/-