Jharkhand High Court
Ritu Rani vs Amit Prasad Son Of Dhaneshwar Prasad on 14 January, 2025
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No.187 of 2024
------
Ritu Rani, daughter of Khedan Saw, wife of Amit Prasad, resident
of village Napu Khurd, P.O. and P.S. Barkagaon, District
Hazaribagh (Jharkhand).
------- Appellant
Versus
Amit Prasad son of Dhaneshwar Prasad, resident of Nutannagar,
Korrah, P.O. Korrah, P.S. Muffasil, District Hazaribagh
(Jharkhand). ----- Respondent
With
First Appeal No.231 of 2023
------
Amit Prasad son of Late Dhaneshwar Prasad, resident of Nutan
Nagar, Korrah, P.O. Korrah, P.S. Muffasil, District Hazaribagh
(Jharkhand). ------- Appellant
Versus
Ritu Rani, wife of Amit Prasad, daughter of Khedan Saw, resident
of village Napo Khurd, P.O. and P.S. Barkagaon, District
Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). ----- Respondent
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
In F.A. No.187 of 2024
For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Umesh Kr. Choubey, Advocate
In F.A. No.231 of 2023
For the Appellant : Mr. Umesh Kr. Choubey, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate
-------
CAV on 05.12.2024 Pronounced on 14/01/2025
JUDGMENT
Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
1. Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Umesh Kr. Choubey, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent in First Appeal No.187 of 2024 and
Mr. Umesh Kr. Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent in First Appeal No.231 of 2023.
2. In First Appeal No.187 of 2024 the appellant is
aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2023 (decree
signed on 18.08.2023) passed by Sri Shambhu Lal Shaw, learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Original Suit No. 98
of 2022 whereby and whereunder the Suit preferred by the
respondent herein under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 has been allowed and the marriage between the
appellant and the respondent has been dissolved.
3. In First Appeal No.231 of 2023 the appellant/husband
is aggrieved with that part of the impugned judgment and decree
dated 01.08.2023 (decree signed on 18.08.2023) by which he has
been directed to make payment of permanent alimony of Rs. 20
Lakhs to the respondent / wife within one month.
4. We shall first deal with First Appeal No. 187 of 2024
and, if necessary, will delve into the merits or otherwise of First
Appeal No. 231 of 2023.
5. For the sake of convenience both parties are referred to
in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court.
6. The petitioner / husband (respondent herein) had
instituted a suit under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent / wife
(appellant herein) in which inter-alia it has been stated that the
marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on
08.12.2020 at Rameshwaram Hotel, Deoghar as per Hindu rites
and customs and after marriage the respondent came to reside
with the petitioner at her matrimonial house at Nutan Nagar,
Korrah, Hazaribagh where she stayed for four months. The couple
has not been blessed with any children. The marriage was a
simple ceremony without there being any demand of dowry from
the side of the petitioner and the entire expenses of the marriage
was borne by the petitioner. The petitioner had given gold
ornaments to the respondent at the time of marriage which was
worth Rs.3 Lakhs. It has been stated that the mother of the
petitioner has been physically incapacitated as her ankle was
broken which was operated upon and the father of the petitioner
had expired in the year 2010 and the petitioner being the only son
has to look after his family which also comprises of three sisters of
the petitioner. The younger sister of the petitioner is still
unmarried who stays with the petitioner. It has been stated that
the respondent during her stay at her matrimonial house always
made attempts to get the petitioner separated from his mother.
During her short stay of four months at her matrimonial house,
the respondent did not indulge in any household works and when
the petitioner insisted, she became aggressive and started
shouting and abusing the petitioner, his mother and sister. The
respondent was in the habit of humiliating the petitioner in the
presence of friends and family members of the petitioner. It has
further been stated that the respondent used to lock herself in a
room and threatened of committing suicide in order to torture the
petitioner and his family members for which the petitioner had to
call the local Police for getting the door opened. The respondent
also had the habit of leaving her matrimonial house without
informing the petitioner or his family members. The first time the
respondent had left her matrimonial house without the consent of
the petitioner was on 19.04.2021 and she came back on
22.11.2021 along with her parents and ten other females, but
there was no perceptible change in her behaviour. On 25.11.2021
the respondent locked herself in a room and started making
threats of committing suicide due to which the local Police was
called in by the petitioner who had broken open the door and had
handed over the respondent to her parents and after going back to
her parental house she had instituted a false case against the
petitioner and his family members.
7. The respondent, on being noticed, had appeared and
filed her written statement in which the allegations made by the
petitioner against her have been denied. It has been stated that at
the time of marriage the parents of the respondent were made to
incur expenses amounting to Rs. 23 lakhs. The respondent after
her marriage had spent one month peacefully at her matrimonial
house after which the petitioner and his mother had started
demanding an amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs as additional dowry and
when the respondent expressed her helplessness in fulfilling such
demand, she was subjected to mental and physical torture. The
sister-in-law of the respondent namely Mamta Prasad @ Mini had
snatched her ornaments given in gift by her father and the other
sister-in-law namely Khushboo had forcibly taken away her
necklace. The respondent was forced to do all household chores
and the petitioner and his family members invariably used to find
fault with her in order to abuse and assault her. The respondent
was not given proper food and she was forced to drink wine and
liquor by her sisters-in-law. It has been stated that after two and
half months the respondent conceived but the petitioner insisted
to terminate the pregnancy. In the month of April 2021, the Mousi
Saas of the respondent namely Usha Prasad came from Rourkela
and with the assistance of the sisters-in-law of the respondent,
administered an allopathic medicine upon her with the assurance
that the medicine will be beneficial for the child in the womb, but
after taking the medicine there was profuse bleeding and
ultimately the respondent had a miscarriage. The petitioner, in
spite of such medical condition of the respondent, did not take her
to a doctor nor did he extend any emotional support to her. It was
because of the parents of the respondent who came over that she
could be properly treated. The respondent was sent to her parental
home on 15.04.2021 for taking rest and in spite of recovery the
petitioner refused to take her back unless the demand of Rs. 20
lakhs is fulfilled. The petitioner had stopped communicating with
the respondent and had also blocked her phone number. In the
month of October, 2021, the petitioner had continuously
threatened her of solemnizing a second marriage and when the
respondent had gone to her matrimonial house along with her
parents and five other ladies, they were not allowed to enter and
finally the entourage had left leaving the respondent and she was
allowed to enter the house at 9 pm. The petitioner used to come at
late hours and did not share the room and bed with her. It has
been stated that on 24.11.2021 her sister-in-law namely Namrata
Prasad had confined the respondent in her room till the next day
which was informed to her mother who later on took back the
respondent to her parental house. In view of the demand of dowry
and torture the respondent had instituted a case being Mahila P.S.
Case No. 21/2021 in which after investigation charge sheet has
been submitted.
8. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following
issues were framed for adjudication:
(i) Whether the suit as framed maintainable in its present
form?
(ii) Whether the parties are legally married husband and
wife?
(iii) Whether the respondent-wife treated the petitioner-
husband with cruelty after marriage?
(iv) Whether the petitioner - husband is entitled for relief of
divorce on the ground of cruelty or any other relief /
reliefs?
9. The petitioner has examined five witnesses in support
of his case including himself who has been examined as P.W.3
which we are dealing with at the outset.
10. P.W.3 Amit Prasad is the petitioner who has stated
about the solemnization of his marriage with the respondent on
08.12.2020 as per Hindu rites and customs at Deoghar. The
marriage ceremony was simple and there was no demand of dowry
made from his side. After the marriage the respondent came to her
matrimonial house at Nutan Nagar, Korrah, Hazaribagh where she
stayed for a period of three months. The entire expenses of the
marriage to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/- was borne by him. In the
marriage, ornaments worth Rs. 3 Lakhs was given by his mother
to the respondent. On account of the death of his father in the
year 2010, the entire responsibility of the family fell on his
shoulders and he had also solemnized the marriage of his younger
sister. He has stated that his mother suffers from several ailments
and her ankle had been fractured which has greatly hindered her
mobility and she requires assistance for her day-to-day work. The
respondent always used to pressurize him to stay separate from
his mother and sister and for which he was subjected to abuses
and humiliation. During his stay at her matrimonial house, the
respondent never indulged herself in any domestic chores and
when he requested her, she used to shout at him and she also
extended rude behavior towards his mother and sister. Though he
persuaded the respondent to change her behavior, but all efforts
proved futile. He has stated that the respondent used to lock
herself in a room and despite several requests, she would not open
the door rather she threatened of committing suicide. He has
stated that on 19.04.2021, the respondent for the first time had
left her matrimonial house without informing anyone and returned
back on 22.11.2021 with her parents and 10 females but her
behavior did not undergo any change. On 25.11.2021, the
respondent had locked herself in a room and started giving threats
of committing suicide due to which he had to inform the Police
who came and broke open the door. The parents of the respondent
came on the same day and took away the respondent to their
house. The respondent had thereafter lodged a dowry related case
against him and his family members. The cruel behavior of the
respondent led him into a depression and he had to be admitted in
C.M.C., Vellore where he remained for 15 days.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a civil
contractor based in Hazaribagh. He was earlier married to one
Rubi Kumari who stayed at her matrimonial house for 9 days and
had never come back since to him. His sister Namrata is
unmarried and she looks after his mother. He had made 2-3
attempts to bring back the respondent but his mother-in-law had
misbehaved with him. He has stated that it is not possible now to
keep the respondent with him. He does not know that the
respondent had conceived within 2 - 2½ months of the marriage.
11. P.W.1 Vinay Kumar Singh has more or less supported
the allegations made in the plaint.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a
friend of the petitioner. The petitioner was earlier married to Rubi
Sahoo but their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent. He
has family as well as business relationship with the petitioner.
12. P.W.2 Anand Kumar Singh has stated similar to what
has been stated by P.W.1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a
friend of the petitioner. He does not have any business relation
with the petitioner.
13. P.W.4 Usha Prasad Sahu is the maternal aunt of the
petitioner who has supported the assertions of the petitioner in his
evidence.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that the
respondent used to lock herself in a room for which the Police had
come and the door was opened.
14. P.W.5 Kumar Rishabh was posted as an Accountant in
Rameshwaram Hotel from 2019 to 2021. His duty was to oversee
the booking and billing of the hotel. He has proved the various
documents related to the billing of the hotel by the petitioner.
15. The respondent has examined five witnesses on her
behalf and the evidence of the respondent is being dealt with at
the first instance.
16. R.W.5 Ritu Rani is the respondent who has stated
about solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner and in the
marriage an amount of Rs. 23 lakhs was spent including cash of
Rs.5 Lakhs given to the petitioner. After the marriage, she had
gone to her matrimonial house on 09.12.2020 where she stayed
peacefully for one month after which the petitioner, his mother
and sister started torturing her in regard to the demand of
additional dowry and her sister-in-law had snatched all her
ornaments which were given to her by her parents. When her
father expressed his inability to meet the demand, the same
resulted in her being subjected to abuses and assault and
insistence was made for fulfilling the demand by selling off the
landed property belonging to her father. Her husband, mother-in-
law and sister-in-law had made it clear that she will not be allowed
to stay peacefully till the demands are met. In the meantime, she
became pregnant and her in-laws wanted to terminate the fetus
but she resisted. In April 2021, her Mausi Saas Usha Prasad came
and showing some ostensible reason had administered an
allopathic medicine upon her which led to bleeding and she had a
miscarriage. She has stated that while staying at her matrimonial
house, she used to do the domestic chores and she was not even
given proper food. She had communicated to her in-laws the
advice of the doctor of having complete bed rest but her husband
and her in-laws sent her to her parental house on 15.04.2021 with
a rider that she can come back only when the demand of
additional dowry is fulfilled. She started staying at her parental
house, but the petitioner never contacted her and in fact blocked
her mobile number. Ultimately, on 22.11.2021 she had gone to her
matrimonial house with her parents but the door was not opened
and her parents had returned back leaving her on the doorstep
when at 9 p.m. the door was opened and she was allowed to come
inside. On 24.11.2021 her sister-in-law started a quarrel with her
and locked her inside a room which was opened on the following
day and when this information was given to her parents, they
came and took her back to their house. She had instituted Mahila
P.S. Case No 21/2021 on account of the physical and mental
torture committed upon her due to non-fulfillment of the demand
of dowry. She has expressed her desire to stay peacefully at her
matrimonial house. She has denied the allegation that she had
locked herself in a room in order to commit suicide. On court
questions, she has deposed that on 25.11.2021, she was sleeping
in her room for one hour and when the Police came and knocked,
she had opened the door. She does not have any document
regarding her miscarriage.
In cross-examination on recall, she has deposed that
she has not filed any case for restitution of conjugal rights. She
was not ousted from her matrimonial house by assaulting her.
17. R.W.1 Khedan Saw is the father of the respondent who
has reiterated what has been stated in the written statement of the
respondent.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had
spent Rs. 23 Lakhs in the marriage, though he does not have any
documentary proof of the same. The respondent had stated to him
that Police had come and got the door opened and it was the Police
which had handed over her custody to him.
18. R.W.2 Soni Devi is acquainted with both the sides and
she has supported the allegations made by R.W.1.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that her house
is at a distance of 2 kilometers from the house of the respondent.
The respondent is her niece in relation.
19. R.W.3 Rashmi Devi has reiterated what has been
stated by R.W.1 and R.W.2.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that the
respondent is distantly related to her.
20. R.W.4 Asha Kumari is the mother of the respondent
whose sworn statement is similar to that of R.W.1.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that the Police
had broken open the door and had brought out her daughter. She
later on says that her daughter was sleeping. She has also
deposed that the petitioner had never demanded any dowry.
21. It has been submitted by Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent / wife (appellant herein) that
all the grounds taken by the petitioner / husband with respect to
mental cruelty has been disbelieved save and except the
perpetrated act of the respondent in locking herself in a room
which was broken open at the instance of the Police and the
issuance of threats of committing suicide was an act of cruelty
without taking into consideration the fact that the respondent had
fallen asleep and there is no incriminating evidence to suggest the
reliability of such threat.
22. Mr. Umesh Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner / husband (respondent herein) has
submitted that the petitioner was put under immense mental
stress on account of the respondent having locked herself in a
room and he was constrained to call the Police who had broken
open the door and had rescued the respondent and handed her
over to her parents. The aforesaid would indicate that extreme
mental cruelty was meted out to the petitioner which has been
appropriately considered by the learned trial court.
23. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective
sides and have also perused the trial court records.
24. The suit has been filed by the petitioner / husband
under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and Issue
No.(iii) is as to whether the respondent / wife has treated the
petitioner / husband with cruelty after marriage or not. The
petitioner has highlighted various instances to bolster his claim
that he had indeed been subjected to cruelty by the respondent /
wife. The issue of a false dowry related case instituted against the
petitioner by the respondent and the leaving of her matrimonial
house by the respondent on 19.04.2021 without any information
or permission which according to the petitioner constitutes cruelty
have been negated by the learned trial court. However, the learned
trial court has answered Issue No.(iii) in favour of the petitioner in
the following terms:-
(h)
"But nonetheless, the respondent-wife as RW-5- herself
admitted that she was in a room for a long period,
which was locked from inside. And door was opened
with the intervention of police.
Her mother as RW-4- admitted that police brought the
respondent out of t room by breaking open the door.
Her father as RW-1 admitted that police made the
respondent over to him.
Thus, it is admitted by the respondent and her parents
that the respondent-wife confined herself in a room at
her matrimonial house for a good period of time. Police
intervened. By breaking open the door, she was
brought out.
Marriage is of December 2020.
Present occurrence took place in November 2021 i.e.
within less than a year.
Law nowadays is quite favourable to bride, particularly
to new bride.
Any untoward incident could have become fatal to
petitioner-husband and his family members.
Explanation of respondent-wife that she fell asleep,
does not seem believable.
It was admittedly after-noon hour. She herself came
with a case that after her quarrel with sister-in-law-
Nanad, she went inside her room.
One cannot fall such deep asleep that she could not
hear such huge hue & cry of in-laws and the Police had
to interfere.
Her this explanation seems to be after thought and
concocted story.
Above act of respondent-wife certainly comes within
the purview of CRUELTY, for the purpose of HM Act."
25. The petitioner who has been examined as P.W.3, has
stated that the respondent had locked herself in a room and had
threatened to commit suicide due to which the petitioner had to
inform the Police who came and broke open the door and later on
handed over the respondent to her parents. This fact has been
reiterated by R.W.4, the mother of the respondent though the
respondent who has been examined as R.W.5 has stated about
opening the door once the Police had come and knocked at the
door. It seems that P.W.3 has mentioned that the respondent used
to lock herself up in a room and despite requests she would not
open the door.
26. The threat to commit suicide and the breaking open of
the door by the Police has therefore been treated to be mental
cruelty committed by the respondent upon the petitioner. It
appears that it is an isolated incident. There has been no such
instance during the period the respondent had resided at her
matrimonial house. If there was a repetition of such threats, the
same would definitely come within the realm of "Mental cruelty".
Moreover, there is no corroborative material to enhance the claim
of the petitioner that the respondent had locked herself in her
room in order to commit suicide. The learned trial court though
had negated the other instance of cruelty highlighted by the
petitioner, but had concentrated on the singular incident of the
threat of suicide extended by the respondent without considering
the surrounding circumstances which is borne out from the
evidence of the witnesses of both the sides. The overall facts of the
case do not point to an impossibility for the petitioner to continue
with his marital life with the respondent. Issue No.(iii) therefore
has been incorrectly answered in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondent.
27. On the basis of the discussions made herein above, we
set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2023 (decree
signed on 18.08.2023) passed by Sri Shambhu Lal Shaw, learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in Original Suit No. 98
of 2022.
28. This appeal is allowed.
29. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
Since the impugned judgment and decree dated
01.08.2023 (decree signed on 18.08.2023) passed by Sri Shambhu
Lal Shaw, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in
Original Suit No. 98 of 2022 has been set aside by us in First
Appeal No.187 of 2024, the present appeal directed against the
quantum of permanent alimony has become redundant and this
appeal therefore stands disposed of.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Shamim/-
