Smt. Neha Kumari vs Santosh Kumar Rajak
2024 Latest Caselaw 780 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Smt. Neha Kumari vs Santosh Kumar Rajak on 23 January, 2024

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             First Appeal No. 142 of 2022
               Smt. Neha Kumari                                  ..... Appellant
                                                        Versus
               Santosh Kumar Rajak                               ..... Respondent
                                                ---------

               CORAM:           Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay
                                Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
                                                ---------
               For the Petitioner        : M/s. Gautam Kumar, Pushpanjali Kumaro,
                                         Kismanti Meinj, Advocates
               For the Respondent        : M/s. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Dr. Shiw Bachan
                                         Tiwari, Dr. Shalini Saboo, Ritesh Kumar Sahu,
                                         Advocates
                                                ---------
08/ 23.01.2024       Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.11.2022 passed by Sri. Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 266 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed and the marriage solemnized between the respondent and the appellant was dissolved in terms of Section 13(1) (i-a) & 1(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, subject to payment of Rs. 12 Lakhs towards permanent alimony.

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

4. It has been submitted by Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (appellant herein) that the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2022 has not properly appreciated the materials available on record while dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. It has been submitted that merely on account of the fact that the respondent had not instituted any suit for restitution of conjugal right, the same could not have been a ground to come to a conclusion that the respondent was not inclined to resume her marital life with the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the learned court below has erroneously come to a finding that on account of the marriage having broken down irretrievably, the decree of divorce has been passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro without considering the fact that it is not within the domain of Principal Judge, Family Court to have passed a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage.

5. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

(respondent herein) has submitted that the respondent had remained with the petitioner only for a period of three months after marriage and thereafter had deserted the petitioner and in fact during her stay at her matrimonial house the respondent was subjected to mental cruelty. It has further been submitted that the mother of the petitioner was suffering from cancer, but in spite of the said fact the torture by the respondent continued unabated, which resulted in the petitioner preferring the suit for dissolution of marriage. It has also been submitted that in fact the petitioner was willing to restore the conjugal relationship with the respondent, for which a suit was also preferred by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal right, which resulted in a compromise. Mr. Tiwari has submitted that an amount of permanent alimony of Rs. 12 Lakhs has been accepted by the respondent and therefore there is no occasion for the respondent to have challenged the impugned judgment in this appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the Lower Court Records.

7. The suit was preferred by the petitioner (respondent herein) in which it has been submitted that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 29.11.2011 as per Hindu rites & custom. It has been stated that the respondent after her marriage came to her matrimonial house and started creating disturbances and disruption by using filthy language against the petitioner as well as against his ailing mother. The respondent always used to threaten the petitioner of falsely implicating him and his mother in a criminal case and ultimately she has filed C.P. Case No. 485 of 2014. On 14.03.2014 the respondent had left her matrimonial house and has never again made any attempts to restore conjugal relationship with him which resulted in the petitioner preferring the suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1) (i-a) & 1(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

8. The allegations made by the petitioner in his plaint has been denied by the respondent in her written statement to the effect that the respondent was subjected to torture by the petitioner and there was a demand of dowry also, which resulted in institution of a criminal case against the petitioner. It has also been stated that on 15.02.2012 the respondent was ousted from her matrimonial house after which the matter was referred to the Panchayat and at the intervention of the Panchayat the petitioner and the respondent resumed their conjugal life, but subsequent thereto she was once again

subjected to torture and ousted from her matrimonial house. The respondent has also filed a case of maintenance, in which an amount of Rs. 14,000/- per month has been directed to be paid.

9. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed:

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

(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit?

(iii) Whether the respondent (wife) has subjected to cruelty against the petitioner (husband) after marriage and whether the petitioner (husband) is entitled to get a Decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty under Section 13 1(i-a)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?

(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief or reliefs, as prayed for ?

10. In course of the proceedings, the petitioner had examined two witnesses including himself while the respondent had examined three witnesses including herself. Several documents were also exhibited.

11. The evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses basically support the contention made by the petitioner in his plaint and denied by the respondent and her witnesses in their evidence.

12. The learned court below while dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has taken recourse to irretrievable break down of marriage. At the same time, it has also considered certain aspects to the effect that the respondent was not inclined to resume conjugal relation-ship with the petitioner as non-filing of any suit for restitution of conjugal rights suggest. It has further been indicated that the criminal case instituted by the respondent had ended in acquittal of the petitioner.

13. Though, we are not in agreement with the learned court below with respect to the finding regarding irretrievable break down of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent which has led to the issue being allowed in favour of the petitioner, but at the same time we cannot lose sight of the fact that various allegations have been levelled by the respondent in her written statement as well as in her evidence which also co-related with the complaint case instituted by the respondent in C.P. Case No. 485 of 2014 under Sections 323, 498A IPC read with Section 3/4 of Dowry of Prohibition

Act. In fact, the written statement of the respondent and the evidence relating to torture of the respondent at the hands of the petitioner and her being ousted from her matrimonial house and in the complaint petition which has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner, the same has resulted in acquittal and the said document was also brought on record through an exhibit. The allegations therefore made by the respondent against the petitioner tantamount to cruelty, as such the allegations could never be substantiated by the respondent before the learned trial court resulting in acquittal of the petitioner. Moreover, it appears that the respondent has already received an amount of Rs. 12 Lakhs granted to her as permanent alimony by the learned court below.

14. We, therefore, on the basis of the reasons assigned above, are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 05.11.2022 passed by Sri. Alok Kumar Dubey, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 266 of 2019 and consequently affirm the said judgment by virtue of the reasonings given by us above and accordingly this appeal stands dismissed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.) jk