Jharkhand High Court
Dhurjati Bhutesh Gowala vs Smt. Putul Gope on 14 January, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
F.A. No. 55 of 2020
Against the judgment and decree dated 12.02.2020 (decree
signed on 17.02.2020) passed by Sri Niraj Kumar, learned
Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court,
Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 01 of 2018.
Dhurjati Bhutesh Gowala, S/o Kalipado Gowala, R/o Vill-
Sindurgori, P.O. Dorka, P.S. Jadugora, Dist.- East Singhbhum.
... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Putul Gope, D/o Shambhu Gope, R/o Vill- Chhota
Govindpur Basti, P.O. Chhota Govindpur, P.S. Parsudih Town,
Dist. East Singhbhum. ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
----
For the Appellant : Ms. Anshu Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Adv.
----
Dated: 14/01/2025
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Ms. Anshu Kumari, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated
12.02.2020 (decree signed on 17.02.2020) passed by Sri Niraj Kumar
Srivastav, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family
Court, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 01/2018 whereby and
whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been
dismissed.
3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to
in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court.
4. The plaintiff (appellant herein) had filed a suit for restitution of
conjugal rights with the defendant (respondent herein) under Section
9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which it has been stated that the
marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with the defendant on
03.07.2017 as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, the
plaintiff and the defendant started residing together and the marriage
was consummated. It has been stated that both the parties are highly
educated. On account of the wedlock, the defendant at present is
carrying a pregnancy of four months as per the diagnosis of Dr. Rupa
Shekhar. The defendant, without any reasonable excuse, had
withdrawn herself from the society of the plaintiff and has been
staying at her parents' house since 12.12.2017 denying the plaintiff
his conjugal rights. Despite several efforts made by the plaintiff
through his parents and common relatives, the defendant is adamant
not to stay with the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant after their
marriage had lived together till 12.12.2017.
5. Despite service of notice to the defendant and notice published
in the local newspaper, she did not appear as a result of which the
case was fixed for ex-parte hearing. The defendant had subsequently
appeared by filing a written statement with a prayer to recall the ex-
parte order and to accept the written statement but vide order dated
11.04.2019, such prayer was rejected.
6. The point for determination was whether the defendant had left
her husband without any reasonable cause or not.
7. The plaintiff has examined two witnesses in support of his case
including himself:
P.W.1 Dhurjati Bhutesh Gowala is the plaintiff who has stated
about solemnization of his marriage with the defendant on 03.07.2017
as per Hindu rites and customs and after marriage, the defendant
started residing with the plaintiff and the marriage was consummated.
At the time of his marriage, he was working as a Mechanical Engineer
in the Gulf. The defendant works in Tata Motors. Out of the wedlock,
no children have been born, but the defendant was diagnosed by Dr.
Rupa Shekhar as having a pregnancy of 4 months. He has stated that
the defendant, without any reasonable cause, left for her parents'
place on 12.12.2017and since then, she is living with her parents
despite repeated efforts made by him as well as his relatives to bring
back the defendant to her matrimonial house.
On Court question, he has deposed that the last time he had
met the defendant was on 01.01.2018. The defendant had refused to
go with him and stay at his house despite efforts made by him.
2|Page
P.W.2 Kalipado Gowala is the father of the plaintiff who has
reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1.
On Court question, he has stated that he is unaware of the
reason his daughter-in-law does not want to stay with the plaintiff. He
has deposed that the defendant has filed a case against the plaintiff.
8. It has been submitted by Ms. Anshu Kumari, learned counsel
appearing for the plaintiff/appellant that the suit proceeded ex-parte
and since the evidence of the plaintiff was not controverted, the suit
should have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Even otherwise,
the plaintiff has been able to prove that the defendant had left the
plaintiff without any reasonable cause.
9. Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the
defendant/respondent has submitted that the plaintiff had
suppressed material facts which have been considered by the learned
trial court and which clearly reflects the reason for the defendant to
stay separate.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides
and have also perused the trial court records.
11. The scenario created by the plaintiff/appellant seems to suggest
that despite efforts made by the plaintiff, it was the adamant nature
of the defendant which prevented her from continuing with her marital
relationship with the plaintiff. There has been no reason for the
defendant to leave the company of the plaintiff, but such innocuous
statements by the plaintiff seems to have been thwarted by the
evidence of P.W.2, who has stated about a case filed by the plaintiff
against the defendant. This apart, the plaintiff has suppressed the fact
in his plaint as well as in his evidence that he had filed a case against
the defendant being C/1 Case No. 1278/18 making allegations that
the defendant had aborted her pregnancy without the consent of the
plaintiff. This is based on a photocopy of the certified copy of C/1 Case
No. 1278/18 submitted by the defendant. Though, the suit had
proceeded ex-parte, but the document submitted by the defendant
was considered taking recourse to Section 14 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984. The basic tenet of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
3|Page
1955 with respect to the burden of proving reasonable excuse for
withdrawing from the society of the plaintiff has been discharged by
the defendant and such circumstances having been aptly considered
by the learned trial court, we find no reason to interfere with such
finding and consequently, we dismiss this appeal.
12. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated the 14th Day of January, 2025.
Preet/N.A.F.R.
4|Page
