Prahalad Prasad vs Sweta Kumari
2023 Latest Caselaw 1287 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
                    F.A. No. 181 of 2019

Prahalad Prasad                                                ......Appellant
                                       Versus
Sweta Kumari                                               ....... Respondent
                                ---------------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Appellant : In-person For the Respondent : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate

---------------

Order No. 14 / Dated: 23rd March 2023

Heard the appellant in-person.

The appellant in-person has taken us extensively through evidence of the respondent and her mother. The appellant has also referred to the judgments including "Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh" (2007) 4 SCC 511, "K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa" (2013) 5 SCC 226 and "Mayadevi (Smt) v. Jagdish Prasad" (2007) 3 SCC 136 to submit that filing of criminal cases against the appellant and his family members one of which has resulted in submission of Final Form by the police would amount to cruelty. The appellant in-person has further submitted that filing application for cancellation of bail, filing of Special Leave Petition against the order passed in Criminal Revision No.123 of 2014 and writing letters to the employer would all definitely amount to cruelty as envisaged under clause (i-a) to sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

With reference to the statement of the respondent in her cross-examination, the appellant in-person has further contended that the acts of the respondent in not wearing sindoor and not having physical relationship with him are also such acts which would amount to cruelty.

The appellant in-person has lastly submitted that the judgment in Original Suit No.243 of 2013 must be set-aside as the entire trial was vitiated on account of inordinate delay solely caused by the respondent.

Per contra, Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to pleadings of the parties and testimony of the appellant given in First Appeal No.181 of 2019. The learned counsel for the

respondent has submitted that the appellant in-person has admitted in the Court that marriage was solemnized with the agreement of his family members and there is no evidence as to demonstrate that a different girl was shown to his family members in course of negotiation and when he refused to marry the respondent false criminal cases were foisted against him.

Judgment reserved.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) R.K.