This High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a cross objection filed by the husband against the First Appeal regarding his adultery. The Court upheld the trial court's finding that the husband committed adultery, leading to the dissolution of marriage, based on cogent evidence and the breakdown of the marital relationship.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cross Objection No. 13 of 2008
Subodh Lakra --- ---- Cross Objector Versus
CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ratnaker Bhengra
For the Appellant : Mr. Rohit Roy, Adv. For the Respondent :
09/26.02.2018 Heard learned counsel for the Cross Objector.
Be it recorded that the husband filed his cross objection to the First Appeal No.919/2006 filed by the respondent no.1-wife being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17th August 2006 / 24th August 2006 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Matrimonial Title Suit No.61/2003 whereby Matrimonial Suit No.61/2003 instituted by the husband/cross objector herein was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved on the grounds of adultery. The appellant however had failed to prove that the respondent-wife had deserted him since more than two years preceding filing of the Suit. The appellant-wife after filing of First Appeal No.919/2006 stopped taking any interest in its prosecution. As a matter of fact, fresh notices were served on the appellant pursuant to the order dated 15th July 2016. Fresh notice was also issued in the cross objection, but she refused to accept notice and the same was hanged on the door. Erstwhile counsel representing the appellant had also informed that she had taken away the file very long ago. The First Appeal was therefore dismissed for non-prosecution on 31st August 2017 and the cross-objection was directed to be listed for hearing separately. The husband/cross objector is aggrieved by the findings in relation his adulturous conduct with respondent no.3 in answer to Issue No.VII.
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the cross objector and also gone through the impugned judgment. We find that there were enough material evidence on record in the nature of evidence of respondent no.3-R.W.6 who was the elder sister of respondent no.1-wife as also the statement of respondent no.1 herself on his adulterous conduct. The plaintiff/cross objector had kept his wife and children along with Binod Gope in a house at Ranchi i.e. respondent no.2. In the meanwhile he had ensured in keeping the respondent no.3
-2-
near his place of posting in order to meet her regularly. There was intimacy between the applicant and the respondent no.3 and after the wife left the matrimonial home due to cruelty, he started residing with respondent no.3 in his house. Respondent no.1 had also emphatically stated that the respondent no.3 had given birth to a daughter in the house of the applicant and was still residing with him as husband and wife. She had also made a challenge that if DNA test of daughter of respondent no.3 is done, it will prove the paternity of the child. The learned court found that the applicant used to come to Ranchi regularly but first used to meet respondent no.3 and make merry with her. This relationship continued for several years and after his wife left her marital home, he kept respondent no.3 in house and developed an illicit relationship. Respondent no.3 in her statement accepted that she is unmarried as per paragraph-49 of her deposition, but it has also come on evidence of the respondent wife that a daughter had born out of the relationship between the applicant and respondent no.3.
In such circumstances, the learned Family Court came to a finding that the applicant is also a guilty spouse and has committed adultery with respondent no.3. It also came to a finding that both the parties are living separately and they have absolutely no connection with each other and that both of them have been leading adulterous life. The marriage had broken down and there was no hope of resumption of their conjugal life.
Learned counsel for the appellant has made strenous arguments to dislodge the finding of the learned Family Court on this count. However, the evidence on record as dealt with by the learned Family Court on this point, appears to be cogent and convincing. If the respondent no.3 was unmarried as per her own statement, but it was shown that she had been living with the applicant in his house after the respondent no.1 wife had left the matrimonial home and that a daughter had been born out to her, the findings recorded by the learned trial court on the basis of preponderance of probablities on the Issue No.VII does not appear to be vulnerable to challenge. The appellant has otherwise got a decree of divorce in his Matrimonial Title Suit No.61/2003 against the respondent wife.
Taking an over all view of the matter, we do not find any reason to disturb the findings of the learned trial court. The cross objection is accordingly dismissed.
( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Shamim/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether findings of adultery committed by the husband against the wife's evidence are vulnerable to challenge in the High Court.
Whether there is any reason to disturb the findings of the learned trial court regarding the breakdown of marriage.
Smt. Shashi Nirmala Tirkey
Shri Binod Gope
Miss Anima Pyari Khalkho
Aparesh Kumar Singh
Ratnaker Bhengra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
