This appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The High Court found no error in the Family Court's conclusion that the appellant failed to substantiate his case due to lack of cogent evidence.
The appeal was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondent-wife within 3 months.
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
First Appeal No. 167 of 2016
---
Deepak Kumar Jha ..Appellant vs.- Sushma Jha ... Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
--
For the Appellant : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv. Mr. Krishanu Ray, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. S. Jaipuriar, Adv.
By Court
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26th November, 2004 at Dhanbad. Thereafter, respondent came to his house at Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur and lived together. Dwiragaman i.e. second marriage was solemnized on 1st December, 2004. No child was born out of wedlock. Petitioner alleged non-responsive behaviour by the respondent against him and his family members. He also alleged dereliction of family responsibility. However, petitioner persisted with her behaviour with a hope of improvement. She used to abuse the applicant and his family member also. She was a very lazy lady and was always found sleepping or sitting idle in her room by getting the door closed and even used to insult him and his family members. Her behaviour did not change. Her brother, Murari Mishra took her back to Dhanbad with an assurance that she would be counseled and thereafter she would go back. She came back on 2nd April, 2005 but within 10 days
again returned to Dhanbad. She again came back in the 1st week of May but returned in the last week of May to Dhanbad. She was found to be of unstable mind and applicant apprehended some medical problem also. He was working at Delhi and wanted to keep his wife at Delhi. Therefore, she accompanied him in 2006 to Delhi. However, within few days she threatened him of suicide and get all the family members implicated if she was not sent back to her parental house. Her brother was called on to Delhi and he brought her back to Dhanbad. Petitioner met with an accident in November, 2007 and was hospitalized. He was brought to Jamshedpur by his father and when he came to Jamshedpur on 24th November, 2007 he found his wife in her matrimonial home. However, she did not go to see him and within 3-4 days her brother came to Jamshedpur and took her back to parental home at Dhanbad. Lastly, she left Jamshedpur on 30th December, 2007 and since then she has been living separately. Petitioner alleged both mental and physical cruelty besides desertion since 31st December 2007 as grounds for divorce.
She denied the allegations made in the plaint and refuted having committed cruelty at any time. She alleged cruelty on the part of the husband on account of demand of dowry and its non-fulfillment . She alleged that Rs. 7,00,000/- was given to applicant’s father in cash at the time of marriage apart from several items in kind and jewelry which have been retained by him. Petitioner-husband used to complain her about meager dowry and persuaded for additional demands. She never behaved abnormally, but she was always treated like a maid-servant and denied company him. She denied any threat of suicide to frame a false case against him. Her brother came to resolve the dispute. She had accompanied him to Delhi but there also she was treated with cruelty and compelled to return from Delhi with her brother. All efforts of restitution of conjugal rights also failed. She alleged that petition was filed with a mischief to obtain divorce.
“ I. Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?
II. Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action? III. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty after solemnization of marriage?
IV. Whether respondent deserted the petitioner for not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the application?
V. To what relief or reliefs is the petitioner is entitled to?
reiterating the case set up in the plaint failed to adduce any other corroborative clinching evidence to substantiate the allegations of desertion from 30th December, 2007 itself. Petitioner and his father both in their cross examinations denied having taken any money as dowry. Petitioner had denied having taken any money as dowry, though father of the petitioner (P.W.2), in his cross-examination, admitted that gold jewelry and various other articles were given at the time of marriage along with palang. He also stated that cash was deposited with him. He further accepted deposit of Rs. 3.5 lacs through cheque and demand draft given in the name of his son and not in his name. This evidence was contrary to the statement of the petitioner, who had denied to have received a single penny through cheque or demand draft from respondent’s brother. Petitioner on his part did not make any specific mention of mental illness of his wife in his examination-in-chief. He stated that he had come to attend the marriage of his friend in 2005. He also stated that he brought his wife along with him and had taken her to Delhi. He further stated that she frequently used to return to her parental home and if opposed she become aggressive. He also stated that the wife was at her matrimonial home when he returned to Jamshedpur after accident which had caused fracture. He had also stated about staying with her for two months. Other two witnesses, P.W. 3 and P.W.4 supported the case of the petitioner. P.W.3 however pleaded ignorance about payment of any dowry through cheque and demand draft. He also stated that no complaint case was filed against the respondent with respect to her behaviour. P.W.4, in his crossexamination, stated that no dowry was given at time of marriage. He was not relative of the petitioner, but only a caste-man who was the mediator at the time of marriage. He also stated about threats of committing suicide by the respondent-wife. Apparently petitioner failed to bring on record any cogent corroborative evidence to substantiate the allegation of cruelty also. Issue no. 3 was accordingly decided against him in favour of respondent.
newly wedded wife was deprived of company of her husband, it could be abundant cruelty on the wife who had to live a life of aloofness confined herself to a room . There were no documentary evidence to prove that she had threatened to commit suicide and implicate the petitioner and his family members. No information was given to the police either at Delhi or Jamshedpur. At the same time, petitioner had accepted that respondent did not institute any case against him under Dowry Prohibition Act or for cruelty in marriage. As such, petitioner had failed to substantiate the serious allegation of cruelty in marriage against the respondent-wife. 10. Leaned counsel for the appellant has questioned the findings of learned Family Court both on grounds of desertion and cruelty but has not been able to improve the case beyond what has been held by learned Family Court. Allegations of cruelty and/or desertion by one aggrieved spouse against the other are to be established with cogent material evidence. Oral testimony of the petitioner’s witnesses sans any remarkable proof of cruelty by any notable evidence on record demolishes the case of the petitioner against the wife. What has been alleged by the petitioner and deposed through his witnesses, at best could be indicative of trivial or normal wear and tear of married life which the spouses have to undergo in the process of adjustment. These minor instances cannot be blown out of the proportion to dissolve sacred thread of marriage itself. Under Hindu Law, marriage is a sacrosanct institution. It is not to be easily dissolved on bare allegations of misbehavior by one spouse against other. Something more than ordinary wear and tear of married life, which is of a serious nature and renders an apprehension in the mind of aggrieved spouse, is required to establish the allegations of cruelty in marriage. Reliance may be placed upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur reported in (2010) 14 SCC 301 and in the case of Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 511. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has also supported the findings of learned Family Court in that light. He submits that petitioner has miserably failed to establish the ingredient of cruelty or desertion in marriage. As such, the Family Court rightly dismissed the suit. The findings are therefore not susceptible to any challenge.
( Aparesh Kumar Singh, J )
( Ratnaker Bhengra, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 9th July, 2018 JK/NAFR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the first appeal against the dismissal of the suit for divorce based on cruelty and desertion.
Whether the allegations of cruelty and desertion were substantiated by cogent evidence.
Whether the family court's findings on the facts and evidence were erroneous or perverse.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gurbux Singh v. Harminder KaurReferred¶29
Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur (2010) 14 SCC 301 · Who else cites this
Ghosh v. Jaya GhoshReferred¶29
Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak Kumar Jha
Sushma Jha
Apareesh Kumar Singh
Ratnaker Bhengra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
