In this first appeal against a family court judgment dissolving a marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that there was no resumption of cohabitation post-judicial separation.
The appeal was dismissed with consequences as per the judgment dated 16.07.2019.
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. 277 of 2019
Chumnu Mahto … … Appellant
Versus
Smt. Holika Kumari Ram … … Respondent ---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Singh, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate
16/17.07.2023 Heard Mr. Sunil Singh, learned amicus curiae for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent.
-2-
parties and therefore, the suit be allowed and the marriage between the parties be dissolved. It has also been stated that the petitioner was compelled to leave her matrimonial house on 13.11.2008 on account of the physical and mental torture committed upon her by her husband. When the relationship was cordial between both the parties, two children were born – Rakhi Kumar and Dipika Kumari and both are under the custody of the respondent. It has also been stated by the petitioner that the respondent is a suspicious person who has never trusted the petitioner. Several instances have been given with respect to the doubt, the respondent had on the character of the petitioner. It has also been stated that the petitioner was working as a constable and baseless allegations were levelled against her which were found to be untrue. Since 13.11.2008, she has started living separately from her husband and from that day, there was no cohabitation between them.
1. “Whether after passing the decree of judicial separation vide judgment dated 10.12.2015 in Original Suit No. 20 of 2011, both the parties have not resumed cohabitation?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of non-resumption of cohabitation since passing of decree of judicial separation?
-3-
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other equitable relief available as per settled matrimonial legal position and/or under the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?”
-4-
R.W. 1 and R.W. 2 has considered the conduct of the respondent, as it appears that he had stated about various facts which seems to have been contradicted by the official record which led to the learned court below to come to a conclusion that the respondent – husband is a liar and therefore, no reliance can be put on his evidence. It further appears that so far as the R.W. 2 is concerned, she is the daughter of the respondent who is residing with her father and therefore, it was but natural for her to have supported the version of her father. The learned court below has therefore, correctly considered his conduct while disbelieving the evidence of the respondent. It also appears that a vague reference has been made by the respondent that cohabitation was resumed sometimes during Holi and Durga Puja in the year 2017 and so far as the R.W. 2 is concerned, she has stated that the resumption of cohabitation was during the Durga Puja of 2017, but no specific date has been mentioned by either of the witnesses and the same therefore, appears to be a deliberate impediment caused by the respondent in denying the petitioner a decree of divorce. The issue nos. 1 and 2 which were the pivotal issues in coming to a just conclusion has rightly been decided by the learned court below in favour of the petitioner. It must also be borne in mind that the earlier allegation of cruelty which was considered in the Original Suit (M.T.S) No. 20 of 2011 in which an order of judicial separation was passed, would further fortify the allegations of cruelty which was levelled by the petitioner against the respondent. 9. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment dated 16.07.2019 passed by Sri Nalin Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 528 of 2017 and consequently, we dismiss this appeal.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
R Shekhar Cp 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the parties resumed cohabitation after the decree of judicial separation?
Whether the appellant is entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground of non-resumption of cohabitation?
Whether the appellant is entitled to any other equitable relief under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Chumnu Mahto
Smt. Holika Kumari Ram
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Deepak Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court