Jharkhand High Court
Sarita Devi vs Balram Pandit on 25 September, 2024
Author: S. N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 266 of 2019
---------
Sarita Devi, wife of Balram Pandit, resident of village Bhelatanr Colony,
B.N. AZ, Qtr. No. 02, Bhelatanr, P.S. Jogta, Dist. Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
......... Appellant
Versus
Balram Pandit, son of late Dwarika Nath Pandit, resident of village-
Basbutia, P.S. Paljori, Madhupur, Deoghar, P.O. Deoghar, Dist. Deoghar
(Jharkhand).
......... Respondent
------
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N. PATHAK
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate
---------
10/ 25.09.2024 Heard the parties.
2. The instant memo of appeal has been directed against the
judgment dated 31.07.2019 and decree dated 07.08.2019,
passed by Kumari Ranjana Asthana, learned Additional
Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in O.S. No.
364 of 2018, whereby the suit for decree of dissolution of
marriage on the ground of adultery under Section-13(1) of the
Hindu Marriage Act has been allowed and decree has been
passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
3. The plaintiff-respondent has filed Original Suit under
Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of
dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. The case of
plaintiff-respondent before the Family Court was that his
marriage was solemnized with the defendant-petitioner on
13.12.2015 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. It was
further pleaded that plaintiff-respondent solemnized 1st
marriage with one Anjana Pal but since from the said marriage
he has no issue and she was suffering from severe diseases,
hence, the plaintiff-respondent solemnized the 2nd marriage
with the defendant-petitioner with the consent of his 1st wife
and relatives. After marriage, both the plaintiff and defendant
started living together but after passage of time, the defendant
started quarrel with her husband and his family members. It
was further pleaded that prior to marriage with the plaintiff, the
defendant-Sarita Devi was married with one Sachida Nand
Pandit but unfortunately, the said Sachida Nand Pandit died due
to illness and hence, the defendant-Sarita Devi married with the
present plaintiff. It was further pleaded that after six months of
her marriage the defendant developed intimacy with one Rajbir
Singh and was leading adulterous life. The plaintiff tried his
level best to settle the disputes but failed to do so. It was
further pleaded that plaintiff-respondent had filed a
Matrimonial Suit No. 166 of 2016 before the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Deoghar in which defendant refused to
live with the plaintiff and asked for divorce from the plaintiff.
The defendant appeared before the Family Court and filed
her Written Statement in which it was submitted that the suit is
not maintainable on facts or on law and is liable to be
dismissed. It was stated that at the time of marriage with the
defendant, the plaintiff has concealed the fact regarding his 1 st
marriage with Anjana Pal who is still alive and is living with
the plaintiff.
4. The main issued framed by the learned Trial Court for
proper adjudication of the case was "Whether the marriage
between the plaintiff and defendant is liable to be dissolved on
the ground of adultery?"
5. Thereafter, evidences were led and altogether 8 witnesses
were examined viz. 5 witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and 3
witnesses on behalf of the defendant.
6. The learned Trial Court after going through the evidences,
averments and the deposition and cross-examination, decreed
the suit on the ground of cruelty and dissolved the marriage
between the plaintiff-Balram Pandit and defendant-Sarita Devi,
which is the matter of challenge before this Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the very
outset submits that though a specific averment was made in
para-4 of the plaint and para-6 of written statement regarding
the 1st marriage of the plaintiff, the same was never considered
or decided by the learned Trial Court.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents very fairly submits that
in view of the averments made in para-4 and para-6 of the
plaint and written statement respectively, it was incumbent
upon the learned Court to frame issue as to whether suit itself
was maintainable on the ground that husband-plaintiff was
earlier married and her 1st wife is still alive and living with the
plaintiff ? In view of solemnization of the earlier marriage and
the same being in existence, the suit for dissolution of 2nd
marriage on the ground of adultery is not maintainable.
9. This Court is of the view that it would be proper for the ends
of justice to remit the matter back before the learned Trial
Court i.e. the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dhanbad to reconsider the matter after framing of the proper
issues.
10. Accordingly, the judgment dated 31.07.2019 and decree
dated 07.08.2019 passed in Original Suit No. 364 of 2018 are
hereby quashed and set and aside. The matter is remitted back
to the trial Court to frame proper issues and thereafter, issue
notice to the parties and decide the case afresh on the basis of
documents already available on record preferably within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Learned Trial Court is at liberty to ask for any other
document which is required for proper adjudication of the case.
11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant
First Appeal stands disposed of.
12. Office is directed to return Trial Court Records to the Court
concerned at the earliest.
(Dr. S. N. Pathak, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Kunal/ Rohit
