Dismissed

Avinash Dubey v. Smt Kiran Dubey

Jharkhand HC4 Apr 2017FA/123/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a husband against the judgment of the Family Court which dismissed his matrimonial suit for divorce alleging cruelty. The Court held that the wife's conduct, including refusing to shift residence and working outside, did not amount to cruelty.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and the interim application for correcting addresses were dismissed, with no decree of divorce granted.

Avinash Dubey Vs Smt Kiran Dubey — Matrimonial and Divorce | Jharkhand HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No.123 of 2016 with

¶3

I.A. No.5002 of 2016

¶4

Avinash Dubey .... Appellant Versus Smt. Kiran Dubey .... Respondent

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK

¶6

For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Das , Advocate Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Krishnu Ray, Advocate -----

¶7

7/04.04.2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Respondent.

¶8

The appellant husband is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 10^th June 2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, in Matrimonial Suit No.210 of 2010, whereby, the matrimonial suit filed by the appellant husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage between the parties by a decree of divorce, alleging cruelty against the respondent wife, has been dismissed by the Court below on contest.

¶9

It may be stated that during the pendency of the Appeal in this Court, the efforts were made for amicable settlement of the matrimonial dispute between the parties, at the hands of trained Mediator of Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, but the efforts have failed. Hence, we have taken up the matter on merits of the case.

¶10

According to the case of the applicant, as reveled from the impugned Judgment, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 31.1.2004 according to the Hindu rites and customs and thereafter the parties were living together. They have been blessed with a daughter out of the wedlock. The applicant husband was working at Agra in a Hotel and it is admitted case that the father of the respondent wife had given Rs.70,000/- by bank draft to the father of the applicant husband for purchasing necessary furniture at Agra, though it is the case of the respondent wife that this money was also a part of dowry. The wife was living at Agra with her husband, where she was also in a job, which was arranged by her husband. It is alleged by the applicant husband that while he was in Agra, the respondent wife was pressurizing the husband to shift to Bhilai, where her parents were living, but it was not acceptable to the applicant to live as

¶11

¶12

gharjamai and it is from here, that the dispute between the parties is said to have started. It is alleged that at Agra, the applicant had fallen ill and was suffering from jaundice, but the respondent wife did not take his care. The respondent became pregnant, and she was brought to Jamshedpur to her matrimonial home. It is stated that as per the customs, since the first child was to be born at her parents' place, she was sent to her parents' place at Bhilai, where the daughter was born to them and thereafter the respondent wife came at Jamshedpur for attending a ceremony, and again returned back to her parents' place. It is further case of the applicant husband that thereafter he came back to Jamshedpur and took up a job in a hotel at Jamshedpur, and requested his wife to come back to Jamshedpur, but the respondent did not accede to the request. There after he sent a legal notice to his wife, whereupon she came back to Jamshedpur. The daughter is admitted in a school at Jamshedpur and the wife is also living at Jamshedpur, but it is alleged that she was leading a careless life and the grandmother was looking after the child. It is however apparent from the impugned Judgment that the respondent wife is also doing a job in Jamshedpur, and when the wife started living and doing job at Jamshedpur, the appellant husband left the job at Jamshedpur and took a job elsewhere. The impugned Judgment shows that in the suit for dissolution of marriage between the parties, the husband alleged the following grounds:-

¶13

(a) The respondent tried to impress upon the applicant to shift his job from Agra to Bhilai, so that she can stay near her parental home and this amounted to cruelty because the husband felt that his social status would be lost as he would be called as gharjamai.

¶14

(b) Respondent did not take care of the applicant when he was ill, i.e., suffering from jaundice at Agra.

¶15

¶16

(d) Respondent tried to take help of black magic in order to have control over the applicant.

¶17

It also appears from the impugned Judgment that though it is an admitted fact that at the time of filing the suit of decree of divorce, the respondent wife was living at her matrimonial home at Jamshedpur and also doing a job at Jamshedpur, but in the plaint, the address of the respondent was shown to be at Bhilai. In the present appeal, the I.A. No.5002 of 2016 has been filed for correcting the address of the appellant from Jamshedpur

¶18

¶19

to a place in the State of Orissa, where he is presently working, and of the respondent, from Bhilai, to Jamshedpur.

¶20

Be that as it may. Upon notice, the respondent wife appeared in the Court below and filed her written statement, in which, all the allegations were denied. The case of the respondent is that she was being subjected to cruelty by the applicant husband for demand of dowry. It is stated that at the time of marriage, Rs. 5,00,000/- were given to the applicant as dowry, apart from other household articles and jewellery etc. Respondent wife denied the allegation that she had ever asked the husband to shift to Bhilai and she also stated that she took all care of the husband while he was ill at Agra. The allegation of black magic is also denied by the respondent wife. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed by the Court below, including the issue relating to alleged cruelty meted out to the husband by the respondent wife. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant husband in the Court below, who were the appellant himself and his father, whereas, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent wife also, who were the respondent herself and her father and the witnesses supported the cases of the respective parties. The fact however, remains that in the cross-examination, it was admitted by the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant that while the husband was working at Agra, the respondent wife also lived with him at Agra and she was also doing a job there. It was also admitted that at the time of filing the suit, the respondent wife was living in the matrimonial home itself, and when she shifted to Jamshedpur, it was the husband, who left the job at Jamshedpur and shifted to other place. 8. On the basis of the materials on record, the Court below came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the husband were ex - facie not substantiated. The Court below found that had the respondent wife wanted the applicant to shift to Bhilai, there was no reason for her to join the service at Agra, and also taking in view of the fact that the respondent is admittedly working lady at Jamshedpur, there appeared to be no occasion at all for her to force her husband to live at Bhilai as gharjamai . The Court below also found the allegation, that the respondent did not take care of her husband when he was suffering from jaundice at Agra, was also not substantiated for the simple fact that admittedly both of them were living together at Agra. As regards the allegation that there was no cohabitation between the parties, the Court below, found that it was the applicant himself, who was responsible for the same, as the respondent wife was admittedly living in

¶21

¶22

the matrimonial home itself. As regards the allegation that the respondent took help of black magic in order to have control over the applicant, the Court below found that there were no such material on record to prove this fact, rather it speaks about mental faculty of the applicant himself. Finding that there was no specific allegation of cruelty against respondent wife, the suit filed by the applicant husband was dismissed by the Court below.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon us that the impugned judgment passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, in as much as, the allegations leveled by the appellant husband amounted to cruelty by the respondent wife, entitling him to a decree of divorce.

¶24

Upon going through the thorough the record, we are not able to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant for the simple reason that there is no specific allegation of cruelty alleged against the respondent wife at all and whatever was stated in the plaint, did not amount to cruelty. The allegation, that the respondent wife was compelling the husband to live as gharjamai at Bhilai, cannot be accepted on the basis of the conduct of the parties, which clearly show that admittedly the wife was having a job at Agra and presently she is also having a job at Jamshedpur, and there could be no reason at all for the wife for asking her husband to live as gharjamai at Bhilai. The other allegations, though do not amount to cruelty, have also not been substantiated by the husband appellant by any evidence. Admittedly, the wife is still living in her matrimonial home and if there is no cohabitation between the parties, only the appellant husband can be blamed for the same.

¶25

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 10^th June 2016. passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, in Matrimonial Suit No.210 of 2010.

¶26

There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the I.A. No.5002 of 2016, filed for changing the addresses of the parties, also stands dismissed.

¶27

(H. C. Mishra, J.)

¶28

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)

¶29

R.Kumar

Avinash Dubey v. Smt Kiran Dubey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avinash Dubey v. Smt Kiran Dubey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roshan Aara Vs Jahir Alam

Roshan Aara Vs Jahir Alam

Ram Nath Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Srikant Mallick Vs Smt Sukla Roy Mallick

Manjesh Jha Vs Mrs Kanchan Jha

Nav Kumar Pandey Vs State of Jharkhand