Appeal against Family Court dismissal of divorce suit under Section 13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act. Appellant claimed cruelty and irretrievable breakdown. High Court found no specific instances of cruelty; disputes were normal marital wear and tear. Appeal dismissed.
None; appeal dismissed with result that the order passed by the lower court is upheld.
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 F.A. No.95 of 2019
-------
Aditya Kunal
----- Appellant
Versus
Smt. Ranjeeta Kumari ----- Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Appellant : Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
14/12.07.2023 Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.12.2018 passed by Sri Brajesh Kumar Gautam, learned principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No.369 of 2016 by virtue of which the suit preferred for dissolution of marriage in terms of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the appellant, who is P.W.2, is important which clearly reveals that cruelty was committed by the respondent upon the appellant. It has been further submitted that the respondent has tried to commit suicide. This fact has also been stated by the appellant P.W.2. Learned counsel submits that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi has merely on account of the fact that the appellant has failed to prove that there was serious nature of cruelty continuously had dismissed the suit, though the evidence of the appellant is contrary to the said finding. It has been submitted that the appellant and the respondent are staying apart for the last eight years and the marriage in fact has irretrievably broken down which fact has also not been appreciated by the learned court below.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that in fact it was the respondent who was subjected to cruelty for which she had
-2-
instituted a criminal case against the appellant under Section 498A of the I.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that no specific instance has been mentioned by the appellant either in the plaint or in his evidence as P.W.2 which would indicate that the cruelty is of such a nature which would justify the plea of dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the respondent.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the lower court records.
The appellant in the plaint has stated that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 10.02.2012 as per the Hindu rites and customs. After four days of the marriage they went for their Honeymoon at Manali where the behaviour of the respondent was noticed by the appellant. It has been stated that the behaviour of the respondent towards the parents of the appellant was also not good. The appellant was working at Dubai and was trying his best to reconcile the issue, but the same did not yield any positive result and ultimately he was forced to leave his job at Dubai and returned back to Ranchi in the month of May 2014. It has also been stated that whenever the appellant went to his in-laws place, respondent and her parents pressurized him to take a separate accommodation leaving his parents. In fact the child which was born out of their wedlock was also not properly taken care of by the respondent. It has further been stated that the respondent had also tried to commit suicide on one occasion. According to the appellant, the respondent has a volatile temper and her attitude towards the appellant as well as his parents would indicate the cruelty which has been meted out to them. It has therefore been submitted that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has broken down irretrievably which led the appellant to prefer the suit for dissolution of marriage.
On being noticed the respondent had appeared and filed a written statement in which she has stated that she had
-3-
taken utmost care of the appellant as well as her in-laws and had performed her marital obligations. It has also been stated that after the returning from Dubai the family members of the appellant had demanded an amount of Rs.6 Lakhs as dowry for purchasing a car and on non-fulfillment of the demand she was subjected to torture. Attempts were made by the appellant to commit murder of the respondent and in fact she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house.
On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed :-
In course of trial the appellant had examined four witnesses including himself and the respondent had also examined four witnesses.
The witnesses of the appellant have more or less stated about the factual aspects of the case apart from the fact that the appellant was treated with cruelty by the respondent. The appellant has been examined as P.W.2 and he has basically reiterated what has been stated in his plaint with respect to the cruelty meted out by the respondent. Similarly the evidence of the respondent who has been examined as P.W.3 is to the effect that there has been a denial of the allegations levelled against the respondent apart from the fact that she was herself treated with utmost cruelty by the appellant.
The evidences of the appellant thus reveal that no specific instance of any cruelty meted out to him has been stated by him. In fact whatever has been stated by the appellant seems to be the result of a normal wear and tear a couple experiences in course of fulfilling of their marital obligations.
-4-
Though the appellant has raised the issue with respect to attempt of committing suicide by the respondent, but the same has not been supported by any other evidence. The learned court below has apparently taken into consideration the fact that neither any date nor time nor place has been mentioned by the appellant in his evidence as P.W.2 and in fact it appears that a criminal case under Section 498A of the I.P.C. was instituted by the respondent against the appellant.
The entire gamut of the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both the sides do not reveal an act of cruelty committed by the respondent upon the appellant which would lead to dissolution of the marriage as the disputes and quarrels which have occurred, seem to be only on account of the normal wear and tear, as noted above, of the marital life.
In such circumstances, therefore we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2018 passed by Shri Brajesh Kumar Gautam, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No.369 of 2016. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Shamim/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the alleged grievances amount to cruelty sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Whether the dispute amounts to normal wear and tear of marital life rather than cruelty warranting decree for dissolution.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Aditya Kunal
Smt. Ranjeeta Kumari
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Deepak Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
