Husband's appeal against dismissal of his divorce suit alleging cruelty and desertion by the wife. Holding that criminal cases she filed supported her torture claims and desertion was compelled, the High Court found no cruelty or desertion proved and dismissed the appeal, affirming the Family Court decree.
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.
First Appeal No. 61 of 2018
Against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2018 and 06.02.2018 passed by Sri Premlata Tripathi, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 175 of 2010.
… … Sunil Kumar Choudhry Appellant
… … Pushpalata Devi Respondent
For the Appellant : Mrs. Niharika Roy Mazumdar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
C.A.V. on – 28.11.2023 Pronounced on – 03.04.2024
Per, R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mrs. Niharika Roy Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent.
has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the petitioner on 21.06.1999 as per Hindu rites and customs at village Kunjwa, P.S. Bihta, District Patna. After the marriage, the respondent came to reside at her matrimonial house at village Maksudpur, PO & PS Shahjehanpur, District Patna. After a few days of marriage, the petitioner went to join his duties in BIT Sindri, where he was a Lecturer in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. The petitioner used to intermittently visit his wife. Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born, but the respondent was never permitted by the petitioner or her inlaws to take the child in her lap. After the birth of the child, there was a perceptible change in the behaviour of the respondent as she never allowed the petitioner to establish marital relationship with her and started misbehaving with her by using expletives. It has been stated that in the month of November 2004 while the petitioner was on duty, the respondent against the wishes of her in-laws packed her belongings and left her matrimonial house and started living at Ranchi, the place of posting of her father. On hearing the news of her departure, the petitioner rushed to Ranchi, but the respondent refused to talk to him and instead abused and threatened him not to come again. On enquiry it has came to light that the respondent was leading an adulterous life with one Sumit whose whereabouts could not be ascertained even after much efforts. In the year 2007, the petitioner received a notice from the Family Court, Ranchi wherein the respondent had claimed maintenance in which the petitioner had appeared and is paying her an interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Since November 2004, the respondent had completely deserted the petitioner. 5. The respondent on being noticed had filed her written statement in which she has denied the allegations levelled against her. She has stated that she was subjected to torture by the petitioner and his family members and the matter was later on compromised. The respondent does not have any source of earning and the petitioner is also irregular in making the payment of maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent. It has been stated that the respondent was compelled to take shelter in her father’s house.
2
P.W. 1 – Sunil Kumar Choudhry is the petitioner who has stated about solemnization of his marriage with the respondent on 21.06.1999 and after marriage, the respondent came to his village at Maksudpur, P.S. Shahjehanpur, District Patna. The petitioner is posted as a Lecturer in the Mechanical Engineering Department at BIT, Sindri. He has stated that a son was born to them who is now aged about 12 years and who stays with the respondent since the respondent had instituted a Guardianship case before the Family Court, Ranchi in which the custody of the child has been given to the respondent. He has stated that in Maintenance Case No. 176 of 2009, he was ordered to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month for maintenance of the child which he is complying. After the birth of child, there was a change in the behaviour of the respondent and for no reasons, he was abused and some times physically assaulted. The respondent had also refused to cohabit with him and started living in a separate room along with the child. He has stated that on 15.11.2004 when he gone to his work place, after a few days his wife had quarrelled with her parents-in-law and without any permission had left her matrimonial house with her belongings and the child and started staying at her father’s place. On receiving such information, he had gone to Ranchi to her in-laws’ place, but he was humiliated by the respondent and his family members with a threat that if he came again, he has to face
3
dire consequences. The respondent had instituted a case under Section 498 A of I.P.C. being Complaint Case No. 691 of 2004 which was dismissed on 27.06.2005. He has stated that the respondent had once again instituted a case under Section 498A of I.P.C. bearing Complaint Case No. 664 of 2007 which was quashed by the Jharkhand High Court in Cr.M.P. No. 813 of 2008 vide order dated 04.02.2011. The respondent has instituted a case of domestic violence against him and his family members on 24.05.2012 in the court of C.J.M., Patna. He had come to know from the neighbours of the respondent that the respondents was having an illicit affair with one Sumit but in spite of his best efforts, he could not trace out Sumit. The respondent had filed a case for maintenance being Maintenance Case No. 50 of 2007 in which pursuant to the order of this court he is making payment of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The respondent had filed another case for enhancement of maintenance amount which is pending.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that in the dowry related case, there was a compromise and there was a compromise in the maintenance case also. As per the compromise, the respondent was to stay with the petitioner in his house and accordingly he had brought the respondent to his house at Anishabad. However, the respondent left the house and went to her father’s place on the same day, he had taken her to his house at Anishabad. The case instituted by the respondent in the year 2007 under Section 498A of I.P.C. was dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The case which has been filed by the respondent for domestic violence has been dismissed. After 2004, he had not filed any case for restitution of conjugal life. The case instituted by the respondent under Section 498A of I.P.C. against him and his family members at Patna is still pending.
P.W. 2 – Madan Mohan Choudhary is the father of the petitioner who has stated that after the birth of the child, the respondent started misbehaving with his in-laws and had also physically assaulted her husband. On 15.11.2004, the respondent quarrelled with the inmates of the house and without any information left for her father’s house and whenever the petitioner tried to bring back the respondent, he was
4
abused and threatened by the family members of the respondent. The respondent had deserted the petitioner since November 2004.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not gone through his own sworn statement.
P.W. 3 – Kanhaiya Choudhary is the brother-in-law of the petitioner who has reiterated what has been stated by P.W. 2 in his sworn statement.
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the torture committed by the respondent upon them was not informed to any authority.
P.W. 4 – Vijendra Kumar Sinha is the friend of the father of the petitioner who has stated on similar terms to that of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not have any knowledge what is going on in the house of the petitioner. 8. The respondent had examined three witnesses in support of her case including herself.
R.W. 1 – Namilal Choudhary is the cousin brother of the respondent who has stated about the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 21.06.1999. After about one month of the marriage, the petitioner and his family members demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- as dowry for which she was subjected to torture. His maternal uncle had gone to Maksudpur to pacify the situation and came back with the respondent. In the meantime, the respondent had given birth to a child, who at the present moment is staying with the respondent. After the birth of the child, the respondent had returned back to her matrimonial house, but there was no change in the behaviour of the petitioner and her in-laws and she used to be mercilessly assaulted. In the year 2004, the petitioner and his family members due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry had assaulted her, took away her belongings and ousted her from her matrimonial house. The respondent had instituted a case against the petitioner which was compromised by the petitioner and he had taken the respondent to Patna. In spite of the compromise, the petitioner and his family members continued to conspire against the respondent and had levelled an allegation that the
5
respondent was having an illicit affair with her brother-in-law Sudhir Kumar Choudhary. When the petitioner secured a job at Maulana Azad Engineering College, Patna he had brought the respondent to his residence at Anishabad, Patna, where his brother, sister and brother-inlaw used to reside. In the year 2006, the petitioner got a job in BIT, Sindri in the post of a Lecturer after which the petitioner started residing at Sindri while the respondent had stayed at Anishabad and the petitioner also left visiting the respondent. The respondent and her son were not being maintained by the petitioner and she had left the petitioner’s house and gone to her father’s house at Ranchi. The respondent had never misbehaved with the petitioner or his family members.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that in 1999, the respondent was assaulted and turned out from the matrimonial house by her inlaws.
R.W. 2 – Shiv Lal Choudhary is acquainted with both the sides. his sworn statement is similar to that of R.W. 1.
In cross-examination, he has shown his ignorance as to how many cases have been instituted by the respondent against the petitioner.
R.W. 3 – Pushpalata Choudhary is the respondent who has stated about solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner on 21.06.1999. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born who was named Amit. In the service book of the petitioner at BIT, Sindri, he has shown himself as unmarried. After marriage, she was subjected to demand of Rs. 5,00,000/- as dowry and on non-fulfillment, she was mentally and physically tortured. Her in-laws due to non-fulfillment of the demand used to lock her in a room and assault her and did not provide food for days. Her father to save her from the torture, used to extend some amount, but the petitioner and his family members were not satisfied and they proceeded with the torture. Since the demand was not fulfilled, the petitioner wanted to solemnize another marriage. The petitioner right from the time of the marriage did not keep her and used to live at Maksudpur, while she stayed with her in-laws. Whenever, she expressed her desire to go with the petitioner, she was subjected to assault. Her father used to come to her matrimonial place, whenever he
6
heard of a torture committed upon her to persuade her in-laws not to resort to such torture and after his visit there was a temporary truce, but subsequent thereto, the torture once again started. She has stated that the allegations were levelled that she was having an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law Sudhir Kumar Choudhary and the petitioner also denied the paternity of the child. In the year 2004, her ornaments were snatched from her and she was ousted from her matrimonial house after being subjected to assault as well. On 15.05.2004, she had gone to her matrimonial house along with her cousin brother, but she was not allowed to enter as she had not brought the dowry amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- and her ornaments were also not returned. She was forced to return back to her parents’ house and thereafter she lodged Complaint Case No. 691 of 2004 as well as a case for maintenance being Maintenance Case No. 64 of 2004. After the petitioner had appeared in the maintenance case, the matter was compromised and in terms of the compromise, she left for Patna with the petitioner. Her absence led to dismissal of Maintenance Case No. 64 of 2004 and Complaint Case No. 691 of 2004. She was kept by the petitioner for a few days at her matrimonial house and she was thereafter kept at Patliputra Colony, where her brother-in-law Sudhir Kumar Choudhary used to stay. After coming back to Patna, she was once again subjected to torture by the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner used to pressurize her to establish physical relationship with her brother-in-law Sudhir Kumar Choudhary. In the year 2006, the petitioner secured a job at BIT, Sindri, but he did not take her to his work place, but had left her at Patna, where she was regularly tortured and on 02.02.2007 on a false pretext, she was brought to Ranchi and was left at the bus stand. Her in-laws had also snatched the child from her. She has stated that after coming to Ranchi, she had filed a case being Complaint Case No. 664 of 2007 in which cognizance was taken under Section 498A of I.P.C. which was challenged before the Jharkhand High Court and on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, the Complaint Case was quashed. She had thereafter filed a case before the ACJM, Patna being Complaint Case No. 373 of 2011 which is still pending. She had also instituted a case for maintenance
7
before the Family Court, Ranchi being Maintenance Case No. 50 of 2007 wherein the petitioner was directed to make payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month. A guardianship case was also instituted being Guardianship Case No. 22 of 2008 which was decided in her favour and the custody of the child was given to her. After she received the custody of the child, she filed another case of maintenance in which the petitioner had accepted his paternity over the child. In the said case, Rs, 2,000/- per month was awarded as maintenance to the child. Her in-laws have also tortured the wife of his brother-in-law Suman Prakash Choudhary for which she had also lodged a case being G. R. No. 377 of 2014.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that after two months of her marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental torture. She has stated that there was no relationship with the petitioner and she is staying separate from the petitioner since 2007.
8
court has considered each and every aspect of the matter while rightly dismissing the suit.
9
need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted.”
10
Premlata Tripathi, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 175 of 2010 and consequently this appeal is dismissed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 3rd day of April, 2024
R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3
11
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner within the meaning of Section 13(1)(i-b).
Whether the petitioner was entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shoba Rani Vs. Madhukar ReddiRelied on¶13
(1988) 1 SCC 105 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar Choudhry
Pushpalata Devi
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Deepak Roshan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court