Jharkhand High Court
Prithvi Nath Singh Son Of Late Ram Ratan ... vs Smt. Shushila Devi Wife Of Prithvi Nath ... on 14 January, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
First Appeal No. 9 of 2022
Against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2021 (decree signed on
23.12.2021) passed by Sri Gati Krishna Tewary, Additional Principal
Judge, Additional Family Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in
Original Suit No. 778 of 2019.
---
Prithvi Nath Singh son of Late Ram Ratan Singh, resident of Qr. No. L-
4/11, Road No. 13, Farm Area, PO & PS Kadma, Town Jamshedpur,
District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand ... ... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shushila Devi wife of Prithvi Nath Singh and daughter of Late
Thakur Tiwary, resident of Village Sirsiniya Jagdeo, PO Hosepur via
Mirzapur, PS Chapra, District Chapra, Bihar... ... Respondent
---
For the Appellant : M/s. Yadunandan Mishra &
Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : None
---
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---
Per, R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent despite
service of notice.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree
dated 18.12.2021 (decree signed on 23.12.2021) passed by Sri Gati Krishna
Tewary, Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 778 of 2019 whereby and
whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant under Section 13 (1) (i-a)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 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 applicant (appellant herein) had preferred a suit before
the learned trial court under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage with the respondent (respondent
herein) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the applicant was
solemnized with the respondent on 06.06.1979 as per Hindu rites and
customs at Sirsiniya at Chapra and at the time of marriage, the applicant,
his father and other relatives had gifted ornaments and other valuable
articles including cash to the respondent. In the marriage, the father of
the applicant had spent Rs. 40,000/- as per the knowledge of the
applicant and his relatives. The marriage was consummated and the
respondent gave birth to a male child on 19.12.1981 who was named as
Jai Prakash. The applicant as per the government policy has got
vasectomy operation done with the consent of the respondent on
06.09.1991 in the Family Planning Centre, TISCO and a certificate was
also issued to him. It has been stated that in 1982 after the child was
born, the respondent was insisting to live at her parents' house at village
Sirsiniya on the pretext that the climate will be beneficial to her son. The
applicant was also agreeable considering the welfare of his son as well as
the fact that the said place will be in the vicinity of the applicant's house
at village Rampur. The respondent had assured that she will look after
the properties of her in-laws and she will be visiting Jamshedpur as and
when the applicant desires. The assurance given by the respondent did
not raise any suspicion in the mind of the applicant regarding her
character or any sort of dislike from her side. The applicant was always
desirous that the respondent should come and stay at Jamshedpur so
that both could have a normal mental and physical relationship. It has
been stated that the respondent is attractive and is conscious about her
appearance who had confided somewhere that there were several young
men who desires to marry her, but her marriage was solemnized with
the applicant with a sole purpose of grabbing the property of the
applicant. The parents of the applicant also had an evil eye over the
income of the applicant who was in the services of TISCO. The
respondent on the advice of her parents and other relatives has made an
application before the TISCO Workers' Welfare Committee for payment
of maintenance amount of Rs. 300/- payable to the respondent and in
order to maintain cordial relationship, the applicant agreed to pay
maintenance amount of Rs. 300/-. The applicant had a feeling of
suspicion towards the respondent since the respondent was not willing
to come to Jamshedpur and reside with him to fulfill her obligations. It
has been asserted that whenever the applicant visited his in-law's house
and attempted to have physical relationship with the respondent, she
avoided the same on some pretext or the other. The respondent had also
avoided going to the ancestor's house of the applicant and since
December 1986 she had flatly refused to come there. On 26.03.1996, the
applicant had visited his in-law's house without any information and he
was surprised to see the respondent in the companionship of an
unknown male in a compromising position and this fact was reported to
the in-laws and other sisters of the respondent, but the applicant was
man-handled by them. The father of the applicant also visited the in-
law's place of the applicant on 03.02.1998 and he was also man-handled
by the respondent and her family members who had declared that the
respondent has a liberty to lead her life with any person of her choice. It
has also been stated that on 05.02.1998, the applicant's son Jai Prakash
had written a letter informing the applicant that the respondent had
given birth to a female child in the month of February 1998 which
shocked the applicant and it was established that the respondent was
living an adulterous life with the person whose name was later on
disclosed to the applicant. The applicant had a vasectomy operation on
06.09.1991 which would have prevented pregnancy and the applicant has
never visited his in-law's house since 1986, as such there was no question
of the respondent getting pregnant through the applicant. A legal notice
was sent to the respondent on 24.08.1998 stating in details the adulterous
relationship of the respondent and the birth of an illegitimate child. A
copy of the notice was also given to the Controller of Accounts, TISCO
Ltd. with a request to stop making payment of Rs. 300/- per month to the
respondent. Based on the aforesaid assertions, the applicant has stated
that he has been treated with cruelty and therefore a plea has been made
for a decree of dissolution of marriage.
5. The respondent did not appear in spite of service of notice
and the suit proceeded ex-parte.
6. The point for determination was whether the respondent is
the wife of the applicant and she had treated the applicant with cruelty
and for which the applicant is entitled for divorce with the respondent on
the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955.
7. The applicant has examined himself as a witness.
8. A.W. 1 - Prithvi Nath Singh is the applicant who has stated
about the solemnization of his marriage with the respondent on
06.06.1979 as per Hindu rites and customs and various ornaments and
other articles were given by his father and other relatives at the time of
the marriage. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born on 19.12.1981 who
was named Jai Prakash. On 06.09.1991, a vasectomy operation was
undergone by the respondent at Tata Main Hospital for which a
certificate was given. After the birth of the son, the respondent
expressed her desire to fulfill her duties towards her parents-in-law as
her parents' house was near to his ancestral house. He had agreed
thinking that the village atmosphere will benefit his son apart from the
assurance given by the respondent that whenever she will be called, she
will come to Tata, though such assurance was never adhered to by the
respondent. He has stated that his wife is pretty and on several
occasions, he had sensed that there is an affair between the respondent
and her neighbour. The respondent's parents wanted to grab the
property of applicant's father. He has stated that an amount of Rs. 300/-
per month was being deducted from his salary which was sent to the
respondent. Despite several requests made by him to the respondent
since the year 1985, she had refused to come. On 22.03.1996, he had seen
the respondent in a compromising position with a neighbour and since
then he had cut off all relations with the respondent. On 03.02.1998 his
father had made an effort to pacify the situation, but the respondent had
abused him. He has stated that his son had sent a letter dated 06.02.1998
informing him that the respondent had given birth to a female child
which disturbed him as a vasectomy operation was already done on
06.09.1991. He has culminated his relationship with his wife as she was
living an adulterous life.
On a court question, he has deposed that since 1985 both are
staying separate.
9. It has been submitted by Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, learned
counsel for the appellant/applicant that there is no relationship between
the appellant and the respondent since 1985 and the marriage for all
practical purposes has become dead. He has further stated that the
respondent has lead an adulterous life which led to birth of a child even
though, the applicant had no physical relationship with the respondent
after 1985 and the respondent had also undergone a vasectomy
operation. Mr. Mishra has submitted that the non-appearance of the
respondent before the learned trial court despite service of notice would
eventually mean that the respondent had accepted whatever has been
stated by the applicant. In fact in the present appeal also she had not
appeared though valid service of notice was effected on her.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant and have also perused the trial court records.
11. The marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the
respondent on 06.06.1979 and a son was born on 19.12.1981. After the
birth of the son, the respondent insisted to stay at her parental house on
the pretext that she will be able to look after her in-laws who stayed in
the nearby village. It is the case of the applicant that though he had
allowed the respondent to stay with her parents primarily to benefit the
growth and overall welfare of his son, but she never came to Jamshedpur
to reside with him despite giving assurance to that effect. The applicant
in his application as well as in his evidence as A.W. 1 has largely
professed on the purported adulterous relationship, the respondent was
having with her neighbour which he claims to have been fortified on
account of the birth of a female child in the year 1998. The first detection
of such adulterous relationship between the respondent and his
neighbour was made on 26.03.1996, but the applicant kept silent and
never made any effort to get the marriage dissolved. In his application,
the applicant has stated that he had come to know about the name of the
person with whom the respondent was having an illicit relationship, but
neither in the application for dissolution of marriage nor in his evidence
the applicant has disclosed the name of said person. Despite being
"adultery" at the centre stage of his allegation, the applicant has not filed
the suit on such ground but on the ground of cruelty. The application of
the applicant would suggest that he is a frequent visitor to his in-law's
house which would negate the theory propounded by the applicant
denying the girl child of his own. There also appears to be an inordinate
delay on the part of the applicant in approaching the court with a prayer
for dissolution of marriage with the respondent and as we have noted
above, despite "adultery" being the fulcrum of the allegation, but neither
the suit was filed on the said ground nor the name of the neighbour has
been disclosed either in the application or in his evidence. The learned
trial court has examined threadbare the case of the applicant before
dismissing the suit. We do not find any reasons to conclude otherwise
and consequently this appeal is dismissed.
12. Pending I.A., if any stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 14th day of January, 2025
R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.2
