Patna, Bihar v. Rekha Kumari, W
Case Details
F.A. No. 156 of 2019 With F.A. No. 180 of 2019 Against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2019 (decree signed on 25.02.2019) passed by Kumari Ranjana Asthana, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 31 of 2018. F.A. No. 156 of 2019 Ravi Ranjan @ Manohar Kumar Ravi, S/o Subhash Singh @ Dinesh Chandra Singh, R/o vill- Nahwa, P.O.-Hansadih, P.S.- Masourhi, Dist.-Patna, Bihar ... Appellant Versus Rekha Kumari, W/o Ravi Ranjan @ Manohar Kumar Ravi, D/o Sambhu Murari Sinha @ Tarkeshwar Sinha, Permanent R/o Vill- Khalproil chak, P.O.+P.S.- Parsa Bazar, Dist.-Patna (Bihar) presently residing at Qtr. No. RK1-136, Sindri, P.O.+P.S.-Sindri, … Respondent Dhanbad F.A. No. 180 of 2019 Rekha Kumari, W/o Ravi Ranjan @ Manohar Kumar Ravi, D/o Sambhu Murari Sinha @ Tarkeshwar Sinha, Permanent R/o Vill- Khalproil chak, P.O.+P.S.- Parsa Bazar, Dist.-Patna (Bihar) presently residing at Qtr. No. RK1-136, Sindri, P.O.+P.S.-Sindri, Dhanbad ... Appellant Versus Ravi Ranjan @ Manohar Kumar Ravi, S/o Subhash Singh @ Dinesh Chandra Singh, R/o vill- Nahwa, P.O.-Hansadih, P.S.- ... Respondent Masourhi, Dist.-Patna, Bihar ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ---- F.A. No. 156 of 2019 For the Appellant For the Respondent F.A. No. 180 of 2019 For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Adv. : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Adv. : Mrs. Swati Shalini, Adv. : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Adv. ---- Dated: 27/11/2024 Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the respondent in First Appeal No. 156 of 2019 as well as Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the respondent, in First Appeal No.180 of 2019. 2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, the
Decision
same are being disposed of by this common order. 3. In First Appeal No. 156 of 2019, the appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18-02-2019 (decree signed on 25-02- 2019) passed by Kumari Ranjana Asthana, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 31 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the respondent herein for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant has been allowed. 4. In First Appeal No. 180 of 2019, the appellant wife is aggrieved with that part of the impugned judgment dated 18-02-2019, wherein a paltry amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been granted to her as permanent alimony. 5. We will deal with First Appeal No. 156 of 2019 at the first instance and if warranted, the legality or otherwise of the quantum of permanent alimony and the challenge in First Appeal No. 180 of 2019 shall be accordingly considered. 6. For the sake of convenience, both parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. 7. The plaintiff/wife (respondent herein) had preferred a suit for dissolution of her marriage with the defendant/husband (appellant herein) under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which, inter alia, it has been stated that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant was solemnized on 11-06-2015 as per Hindu rites and customs at Patna. At the time of the marriage, the parents of the plaintiff had given the defendant various articles worth Rs. 8,10,391/- The plaintiff is an Assistant Teacher in D.A.V. Middle School, Jharia and at the time of negotiation of the marriage, the family members of the defendant projected the defendant as an M.B.A. working as a Loco Pilot in the Railways but when after marriage, the plaintiff started residing at her matrimonial house, she found that the defendant is neither an M.B.A. nor does he work in the Railways. Inspite of such 2 | P a g e discovery, the plaintiff desired to lead her matrimonial relationship with the defendant but the parents of the defendant demanded a Scorpio vehicle and Rs. 10,000/- per month as pocket money. When the plaintiff objected to such demand, she was tortured and ousted from her matrimonial house on 14-06-2015 and since then, the plaintiff is residing at her parents’ house and there is no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as wife and husband. It has been stated that the parents of the plaintiff had given Rs. 4 lakhs for purchasing a Scorpio vehicle, but being dissatisfied, demand was made of Rs. 10,000 per month. Inspite of the best efforts made by the parents of the plaintiff, the matter could not be resolved and ultimately the plaintiff had to file a criminal case being Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 101/2016. The plaintiff had thereafter, come back to her place of posting at Sindri and is residing there. 8. On being noticed, the defendant/husband had appeared and filed his written statement in which he has denied the allegations made in the plaint. It is a fact that on 14-06-2015, the plaintiff had left her matrimonial house with her ornaments and valuables without any reason and since then she is living with her parents at Sindri, Dhanbad. The defendant had made several attempts to bring back the plaintiff to her matrimonial house though in vain and even now the defendant is ready and willing to keep the plaintiff with him with full dignity and honor. Nothing has been concealed from the plaintiff and her family about the career of the defendant. 9. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed for adjudication: i. Whether the suit maintainable in its present form? ii. Whether the plaintiff has got a valid cause of action for the suit? iii. Whether the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is fit to be dissolved on the ground of cruelty allegedly administered by defendant? iv. Whether the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant is fit to be dissolved on the ground of 3 | P a g e desertion? v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed? 10. The plaintiff has examined three witnesses in support of her case: P.W.1 Rekha Kumari Sinha is the plaintiff who has stated about solemnization of her marriage with the defendant on 11-06-15 as per Hindu rites and customs and various articles including ornaments were given by her parents at the time of the marriage. When the marriage negotiation was going on, the mediator as well as the family members of the defendant had disclosed that the defendant is an M.B.A. and is employed as a Loco Pilot in the Railways. But when she went to her matrimonial house after marriage, she found such claims as false. She has stated that inspite of coming to know about such fact, she continued with her marital ties, but her in-laws had started demanding a Scorpio vehicle and Rs.10,000/- per month as pocket money. When she refused to adhere to such demand, she was mentally and physically tortured and on 14-06-2015, she was ousted from her matrimonial house and since then, she is residing at her parents' house. Her husband and in-laws refused to accept the proposal of compromise extended by her father and even though Rs. 4 lakhs was given to them, but they persisted with their demand of Rs.10,000 per month. She had filed a case against the defendant and his family members being Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 101/2016. In cross-examination, she has deposed that when she was ousted from her matrimonial house on 14-06-2015, she had not made any complaint to the local police against the defendant and her in- laws. Even if the defendant wants to keep her with full dignity and honor, she will not stay with the defendant. P.W.2 Shambhu Murari Sinha is the father of the plaintiff, who has reiterated what has been stated by P.W.1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the plaintiff after marriage had stayed at her matrimonial house for two days only. He would, in no circumstances, keep the defendant in his house as the defendant is a quarrelsome person. 4 | P a g e P.W.3 Suman Chaudhary is acquainted with both the sides, who has also supported what has been stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was not present when the marriage negotiations were going on. 11. The defendant has also examined three witnesses in support of his case: D.W.1 Ravi Ranjan alias Manohar Kumar Ravi is the defendant, who has stated about solemnization of his marriage with the plaintiff. He has denied of committing physical and mental torture upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff had stayed at his house for three days after which she left for her parental house and had also taken with her the ornaments and other belongings. The plaintiff is working as a teacher in D.A.V Middle School, Jharia having a salary of Rs. 45,000/- and since he is unemployed, the plaintiff has refused to stay with him. He had not taken any dowry from the plaintiff or her parents. He has stated that prior to the marriage, he had disclosed to the father of the plaintiff that he is trying for a job and has passed the test for Assistant Loco Pilot and he had to face the interview. Inspite of knowing the said fact, the father of the plaintiff had got the marriage of the plaintiff solemnized with him. However, he failed in the interview, a copy of which has been exhibited. He has expressed his desire to keep the plaintiff with him with full dignity and honor. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the plaintiff had left for her parents' house after residing with him for only three days. He had gone to take the vidai of the plaintiff on several occasions, but the same was refused. D.W.2 Dinesh Chandra Singh alias Subhash Singh is the father of the defendant who has supported the statement of the defendant. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of marriage, he had disclosed about the defendant having passed the written examination for the post of Loco Pilot. He and the defendant had gone to the parents' house of the plaintiff to bring her back, but they were turned away. After the results for the post of Loco Pilot came 5 | P a g e out and the defendant failed, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant deteriorated. D.W.3 Sudhir Kumar is acquainted with both the sides and he has reiterated what has been stated by D.W.1 and D.W.2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is not aware that a criminal case under section 498A IPC is pending against the defendant. The defendant had disclosed to him that he had passed the Loco Pilot examination. 12. It has been submitted by Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/appellant that the impugned judgment is perverse as the same is based on surmises and conjectures. It has been submitted that the plaintiff resided in her matrimonial house for only three days and thereafter left for her parental house as according to her, she was ousted by the defendant and her in-laws but no complaint was made to the local police station and in fact, the criminal case lodged by the plaintiff, was after the year of her purported ouster. The plaintiff had never made any attempts to continue with her marital ties with the defendant despite several attempts made by the defendant to bring back the plaintiff to her matrimonial house. There has never been any suppression by the defendant regarding his employment status but only on account of the fact that the plaintiff earns a handsome amount working as a teacher and the defendant is unemployed, she had filed the suit for dissolution of marriage. Mr. Lala has submitted that the learned trial court has taken recourse to irretrievable breakdown of marriage as one of the grounds for granting divorce but it was beyond the purview of the learned trial court to consider such ground. 13. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appearing for the plaintiff (respondent herein) has submitted that the defendant had suppressed his qualification as well as the status of his employment at the time when the marriage negotiation was going on and such suppression would definitely amount to mental cruelty. It has been submitted that after marriage there was a demand of a Scorpio vehicle and Rs. 10,000/- per month and for non-fulfilment of which, she was 6 | P a g e subjected to torture and was ousted from her matrimonial house. It has been submitted that filing of a dowry related case against the defendant would be sufficient to conclude that the plaintiff was subjected to cruelty. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 15. Issue Nos. (iii) and (iv) are the core issues which govern the fate of the suit. Both the issues have been answered by the learned trial court in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The instances which, according to the plaintiff, constitute cruelty are (a.) after marriage the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is neither an M.B.A. nor he is employed as a loco pilot in the railways and (b.) there was a demand of a Scorpio vehicle and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Generally, at the time of marriage negotiation, the veracity of the claim made by either of the sides are ascertained and only on satisfaction further progress is made. As per P.W.1(plaintiff) a mediator was also involved in the marriage negotiation but he has not been examined on behalf of the plaintiff. There is no dispute that the defendant had appeared in the examination for Loco Pilot and the dispute seems to be the inability of the defendant to secure a job in the Railways. The plaintiff has projected a scenario that being aghast at the suppression made by the defendant of his employment status and the demand of dowry, she had left her matrimonial house and started residing at her parental house, though she claims to have been ousted from her matrimonial house. In either of the circumstances, the plaintiff could have approached the local police station but she refrained from making any complaint, though after a year she has filed a criminal case against the defendant and her in-laws at Parsa Bazar P.S. It is not the case of the plaintiff that she had ever made any attempts to restore normalcy in her matrimonial relationship with the defendant and on the contrary, in her evidence she has categorically stated that in no circumstances she will stay with the defendant. This assertion of the plaintiff has been reiterated by her father, who has been examined as 7 | P a g e P.W.2. On the other hand, the defendant and his father have explicitly stated in their evidence about attempts made by them to bring back the plaintiff to her matrimonial house. 16. “Cruelty” has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the case of A. Jayachandra versus Aneel Kaur reported in (2005) 2 SCC 22 cruelty has been construed to mean as follows: “10. The expression "cruelty" has not been defined in the Act. Cruelty can be physical or mental. Cruelty which is a ground for dissolution of marriage may be defined as willful and unjustifiable conduct of such character as to cause danger to life, limb or health, bodily or mental, or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. The question of mental cruelty has to be considered in the light of the norms of marital ties of the particular society to which the parties belong, their social values, status, environment in which they live. Cruelty, as noted above, includes mental cruelty, which falls within the purview of a matrimonial wrong. Cruelty need not be physical. If from the conduct of his spouse same is established and/or an inference can be legitimately drawn that the treatment of the spouse is such that it causes an apprehension in the mind of the other spouse, about his or her mental welfare then this conduct amounts to cruelty. In delicate human relationship like matrimony, one has to see the probabilities of the case. The concept, a proof beyond the shadow of doubt, is to be applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not to matters of such delicate personal relationship as those of husband and wife. Therefore, one has to see what are the probabilities in a case and legal cruelty has to be found out, not merely as a matter of fact, but as the effect on the mind of the complainant spouse because of the acts or omissions of the other. Cruelty may be physical or corporeal or may be mental. In physical cruelty, there can be tangible and direct evidence, but in the case of mental cruelty there may not at the same time be direct evidence. In cases where there is no direct evidence, Courts are required to probe into the mental process and mental effect of incidents that are brought out in evidence. It is in this view that one has to consider the evidence in matrimonial disputes. 11. The expression ’cruelty’ has been used in relation to human conduct or human behaviour. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial 8 | P a g e 12. To constitute cruelty, duties and obligations. Cruelty is a course or conduct of one, which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, the Court will have no problem in determining it. It is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the problem presents difficulties. First, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of cruel treatment, second the impact of such treatment in the mind of the spouse, whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other. Ultimately, it is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of the conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. However, there may be a case where the conduct complained of itself is bad enough and per se unlawful or illegal. Then the impact or injurious effect on the other spouse need not be enquired into or considered. In such cases, the cruelty will be established if the conduct itself is proved or admitted (See Sobh Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, AIR 1988 SC 121). the conduct complained of should be "grave and weighty" so as to come to the conclusion that the petitioner spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse. It must be something more serious than "ordinary wear and tear of married life". The conduct, taking into consideration the circumstances and background has to be examined to reach the the conduct complained of conclusion whether amounts to cruelty in the matrimonial law. Conduct has to be considered, as noted above, in the background of several factors such as social status of their education, physical and mental parties, conditions, customs and traditions. It is difficult to lay down a precise definition or to give exhaustive the circumstances, which would description of constitute cruelty. It must be of the type as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the relationship between the parties had deteriorated to such an extent due to the conduct of the other spouse that it would be impossible for them to live together without mental agony, torture or distress, to entitle the complaining spouse to secure divorce. Physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty and a consistent course of conduct inflicting immeasurable mental agony and torture may well constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Mental cruelty may consist of verbal abuses and insults by using filthy and abusive language leading to constant disturbance of mental peace of the other party.” 9 | P a g e In the case of Joydeep Majumdar versus Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar reported in (2021) 3 SCC 742, cruelty has been held to be as under: “10. For considering dissolution of marriage at the instance of a spouse who allege mental cruelty, the result of such mental cruelty must be such that it is not possible to continue with the matrimonial relationship. In other words, the wronged party cannot be expected to condone such conduct and continue to live with his/her spouse. The degree of tolerance will vary from one couple to another and the Court will have to bear in mind the background, the level of education and also the status of the parties, in order to determine whether the cruelty alleged is sufficient to justify dissolution of marriage, at the instance of the wronged party. In Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Ghosh1, this Court gave illustrative cases where inference of mental cruelty could be drawn even while emphasizing that no uniform standard can be laid down and each case will have to be decided on its own facts.” 17. The learned trial court has stated about the cruel behavior of the defendant towards the plaintiff but it is to be borne in mind that the plaintiff had stayed at her matrimonial house for only three days. The finding of the learned trial court that the life and limb of the plaintiff is not safe in the company of the defendant appears to be incomprehensible as the factual aspects of the case do not support so. 18. So far as desertion is concerned, it seems that it was the plaintiff who was reluctant to continue with her marital relationship with the defendant and the evidence adduced by the plaintiff does not suggest that there was a willful abandonment of the plaintiff on the part of the defendant and the presumption made by the learned trial court that the marriage has broken down as the parties are residing separately since long is a perverse finding and dehors the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Issue nos. (iii) and (iv) are answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. We consequently come to a finding that “cruelty” and “desertion” have not been proved by the plaintiff and the learned trial court committed an error in answering these issues in favour of the plaintiff and resultantly, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 18-02-2019 (decree signed on 25-02-2019) passed by Kumari Ranjana Asthana, learned Principal 10 | P a g e Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 31 of 2018. 19. This appeal is allowed. 20. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. 21. Since First Appeal No. 156 of 2019 has been allowed in favor of the defendant, the claim of the plaintiff/appellant in First Appeal No. 180 of 2019 for enhancement of the amount of permanent alimony has become redundant. Consequently, this appeal is disposed of. 22. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) (ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated the 27th Day of November, 2024. Preet/N.A.F.R. 11 | P a g e