Naresh Verma vs Gudia
2023 Latest Caselaw 3683 Jhar

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        First Appeal No. 22 of 2020
                              ----

Naresh Verma, Son of Bhuneshwar Verma, Resident of Village-Chadgar, P.O. Khori Mahua, P.S. Dhanwar, District-Giridih. .....Appellant Versus

1. Gudia, W/o Naresh Verma, D/o Lakshman Mahto, R/o Village-Kurumdiha, P.O. Giridih, P.S. Giridih(M), District-Giridih.

2. Vishal Verma @ Vishal Mehta, S/o Darsu Mahto, R/o Village-Shaharpur, P.O. P.S. Jamua, (Nawdiha), District-Giridih. ....Respondent

--------

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

--------

            For the Appellant               : Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, Advocate
            For the Respondent No. 1         : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
                                              : Mr. Nilesh Modi, Advocate
                                   --------
12/4/10/2023         Per R Mukhopadhyay, J

Heard Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 9.12.2019, passed by Kumari Ranjana Asthana, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Original Suit (TMS) No. 244 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant under section 13(i) and (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status in the learned court below.

4. A suit was preferred by the plaintiff (appellant herein) against his wife- defendant no. 1(respondent no. 1 herein) seeking for a decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion and the averments made in the plaint reveal that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with the defendant in the year 2011 as per customs prevailing in the community of the parties. After the marriage, the defendant no. 1 started residing in the house of the plaintiff and out of the said wedlock, a daughter was born. It has been alleged that after a few months of marriage, the defendant no. 1 started quarreling with the plaintiff and his family members for no rhyme or reason and in spite of their best efforts no reasons could be gathered for such behavior and the defendant no. 1 expressed her desire to go to her parents' house at Kurumdiha. The defendant no. 1 also put pressure upon the plaintiff to live separate from his family. The defendant no. 1 threatened to consume poison and falsely implicate the plaintiff and his family members in a criminal case. It has been averred that in the month of November, 2014, a Panchayti was held at village-Chadgar but

the dispute between the parties could not be resolved. The plaintiff became suspicious about the behaviour of the defendant no. 1 and on making a discreet enquiry at village-Kurumdiha it came to his knowledge that the defendant no. 1 has an illicit relationship with one of the co-villagers of Kurumdiha. In December, 2019, the defendant no. 1 came along with her family members at village- Chadgar and in the Panchayat she had stated about her desire not to stay with the plaintiff and she demanded 'Farkati'. It has been stated that the defendant no. 1 as per the customs prevalent in the community of the plaintiff divorced the plaintiff in presence of the Panches and left the plaintiff once and for all. The plaintiff had on several occasions tried his best to bring back the defendant to her matrimonial house but of no effect. The plaintiff had suffered mental cruelty on account of the conduct of the defendant no. 1.

5. The defendant no. 1 on being noticed had appeared and filed her written statement in which she has denied the allegations levelled against her. She has stated that it is false to allege that after a few months she had started quarreling with the plaintiff and his family members as the reality is that after the birth of a daughter the plaintiff and his family members started misbehaving with the defendant no. 1 and taunting her for giving birth to a daughter which has unnecessarily created a financial burden upon them. She has stated that she was subjected to abuses and assault by the plaintiff and his family members and the mother of the plaintiff used to serve her food without salt and this led to a deterioration in the health of the defendant. She has also denied the allegations that the plaintiff was pressurized by her to stay separate with him. She has stated that she still intends to reside along with her husband. She has also stated that the plaintiff and her family members had demanded a color T.V., Fridge and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and due to non-fulfillment of which she was subjected to mental and physical torture. She has also denied the allegation that she was having an illicit relationship with a person from her village. She has been mentally hurt on account of such baseless allegations touching upon her character. She has also denied that she had ever demanded 'Farkati' in the Panchayat. It has also been stated that from 17.9.2013 she is at her parents' house along with her children but the plaintiff has never ever enquired about their welfare nor has he paid any maintenance.

6. Based on the pleadings between the parties, the following issues were framed:-

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

(ii) Whether the respondent has treated the appellant with cruelty?

(iii) Whether the respondent has got some illicit relationship with one of the co-villagers of village- Kurumdiha?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of divorce against the respondent?

7. The plaintiff in support of his case has examined five witnesses including himself.

P.W-1-Vijay Kumar Mandal is acquainted with the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1. He has stated that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with the defendant no. 1 in the year 2011 as per Hindu Rites & Customs and out of the said wedlock, one daughter namely Sakshi was born. The defendant no. 1 after a few days of marriage started quarreling on a regular basis with her husband and inlaws. The defendant no. 1 used to be adamant to go to her parents' house and on failure to do so would abuse the plaintiff and would also sometimes resort to assault. The defendant no. 1 wanted to sever all marital ties with the plaintiff but the plaintiff was always trying his best to save his marriage. He has stated that the defendant no. 1 also used to issue threats that if she is not given divorce she would consume poison and commit suicide and will falsely implicate the plaintiff and her inlaws in a criminal case. Being fed up with the behavior and tantrums of the defendant no. 1, the plaintiff had called for a Panchayti at village-Chadgar in November, 2013 wherein also the defendant no. 1 reiterated her demand for a divorce and resultantly no decision could be arrived at in the Panchayat. When an enquiry was made as to why the defendant is adamant in getting a divorce, it came to knowledge that she was having an illicit relationship with one Vishal Mehta @ Vishal Verma (respondent no. 2 herein).

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge about the illicit relationship between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 and he was told about the same by the plaintiff. In the Panchayti, the defendant no. 1 had disclosed about her desire to stay with the defendant no. 2 but he does not know as to whether any document was prepared or not.

P.W-2-Deepak Verma is acquainted with the both the sides. His Examination in Chief is similar to that of P.W-1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the plaintiff is working in Delhi for the last 8-10 years. He does not know as to whether the defendant no. 1 has instituted a case of dowry against the plaintiff or not. He does not have any knowledge as to whether any document was prepared in the Panchayat or not.

P.W-3-Naresh Verma is the plaintiff himself who has admitted about his marriage with the defendant no. 1 in the year 2011 and the birth of a child. He has stated about the defendant no. 1 being a quarrelsome lady who wanted to stay at her parents' house. He has also stated about the threats given by the defendant no. 1 of committing suicide and implicating her in-laws in a false criminal case. The Illicit relationship between the defendant no. 1 and defendant

no. 2 has also been revealed by him. He has stated that from September, 2013, he is not having any marital relationship with the defendant no. 1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not want to stay with the defendant no.1. His wife has instituted a case against him relating to dowry after the present case for divorce was instituted by him. He has stated that he works in Delhi. No papers were prepared in the Panchayat. He does know as to who had told him that his wife is having an illicit relationship with Vishal Verma.

P.W-4-Anil Sharma is well acquainted with both the sides and his version is a reiteration of the statement of the other witnesses.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the plaintiff had disclosed to him about Guria Devi speaking to someone on phone. The plaintiff had also disclosed that it was one Vishal Verma with whom Guria Devi used to talk. He had never met Vishal Verma. He stays at Rajasthan where he runs a cosmetic shop.

P.W-5-Pramod Sharma is a neighbor of the plaintiff who in his Examination in Chief has stated on similar terms as that of the other witnesses.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the defendant no. 1 is staying at her parents' house since the year 2013. He has stated that the plaintiff stays at Delhi and sometimes comes to his native village.

8. The defendant no. 1 has examined three witnesses including herself.

D-W-1-Ram Prasad Mahto is the brother of the defendant no. 1 who has deposed that only with a view to save himself from the criminal case, the plaintiff has instituted the suit for divorce. He has denied the allegations against the defendant no. 1 of quarreling and misbehaving with the plaintiff and her inlaws. The plaintiff has instituted the suit which is founded on false allegations and no cause of action had arisen justifying such institution.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that it is wrong to say that his sister is having an illicit relationship with Vishal Verma. He has stated that the current case instituted by his sister is after the suit for divorce instituted by the plaintiff.

D.W-2-Raj Kishore Prasad Kushwaha is acquainted with the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. He has stated that the plaintiff had instituted the suit with an oblique motive in order to save himself from the criminal case lodged by the defendant no. 1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not have any acquaintance with the family members of the defendant no. 1. He is not on family terms with the plaintiff. He has denied the allegations of Guria Devi having an illicit relationship with Vishal Verma.

D.W-3-Guria Devi has denied the allegations made by the plaintiff against her. She has stated that she never refused cohabitation with the plaintiff. After

the birth of a daughter, she was subjected to torture and demands were also made.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she does not know Vishal Verma. No Panchyati was held in 2013 at village-Chadgar. She has denied the allegation that she does not want to stay with her parents in law at her matrimonial house.

9. Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, has submitted that the defendant no. 1 without any reasonable cause had withdrawn from the society of the plaintiff. It has been submitted that the defendant no. 1 during stay at her matrimonial house had committed cruelty upon the plaintiff and his family members by resorting to quarrel and assault. It has also been submitted that the defendant no. 1 was leading an adulterous life with one Vishal Verma (defendant no. 2) and this fact has been consistently stated by the plaintiff and his witnesses. He has submitted that both parties are living separately since 2013 and the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

10. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing for the defendant no.1, has submitted that the defendant no. 1 was all along willing to reside at her matrimonial house but it was the plaintiff and his family members who were instrumental in disrupting the marital relationship which forced the defendant no. 1 to file a criminal case under section 498A of IPC in which the accused persons were convicted. It has been submitted that animus deserendi has not been proved. So far as the illicit relationship as alleged by the plaintiff is concerned, it is a figment of imagination on the part of the plaintiff as even his witnesses have based such insinuation on the purported disclosure made to them by the plaintiff.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the Lower Court Records.

12. Issue Nos. (ii)(iii) and (iv) assume significance as these issues encompass the crux of the case.

13. The plaintiff has alleged that after a few months of marriage, the defendant no. 1 started quarreling and misbehaving with him and his family members. However, the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses have not been able to prove that the cruelty meted out to the plaintiff by the defendant no. 1 was to such an extent that it had become impossible to lead a matrimonial life with the defendant no. 1. Whatever has been highlighted seems to indicate the normal wear and tear which generally occurs in a domestic set up. It would seem that the defendant no. 1 was infact subjected to torture by the plaintiff and his family members which led to institution of a criminal case under section 498A IPC and in which the plaintiff and his parents were convicted. The plaintiff has failed to signify any specific instance against the defendant no. 1 which can be levelled

as cruelty. The plaintiff has also failed to justify his contention that without any reasonable cause the defendant no. 1 had left her matrimonial house. It is the defendant no. 1 who has been able to prove that she was prevented by sufficient cause to resume her marital ties on account of the demand of dowry and torture meted out to her. The plaintiff has therefore been unable to cement his grounds of cruelty and desertion and such issue has been rightly answered against the plaintiff.

14. So far as the alleged illicit relationship, the defendant no. 1 was having with the defendant no. 2 is concerned, the same seems to be unsubstantiated, baseless and scandalous. Most of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff have stated about having no personal knowledge regarding the alleged illicit relationship between the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2. Even the plaintiff who has been examined as P.W-3 has expressed his ignorance as to from whom he had come to know about such illicit relationship. Issue No. (iii) is therefore also negated.

15. The learned court below has therefore correctly assessed the evidence on record while answering the principle issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant no. 1 and there being no cause to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree dated 9.12.2019, passed by Kumari Ranjana Asthana, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Original Suit (TMS) No. 244 of 2014 this appeal as a consequence is dismissed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)

(Deepak Roshan,J) Rakesh/-