The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 242 of 2019 Ramanuj Kumar ------- Versus … Appellant Priyanka … … Respondent ------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Appellant: Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate 29/28.06.2023
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.07.2019 and decree dated 15.07.2019 passed in Original Suit No.107 of 2014 by Shri Nalin Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder the Suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of marriage on the ground of mental cruelty and unsoundness of mind has been dismissed. A suit was preferred by the appellant being Original Suit No.107 of 2014 under Section 13(1) (ia) & (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent praying for a decree of divorce and dissolution of marriage. It has been averred in the plaint that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 24.11.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs and from the said wedlock two children were born. It has been stated that from the initial stage of marriage the behavior of the respondent was not normal and she also used to be aggressive. It has been stated that the respondent had doubts regarding extra marital relationship of the appellant with several women and whenever the appellant requested her to see a Medical Practitioner, she became aggressive and made threats of committing suicide. It has been stated in the plaint that the respondent had also some vision problems and she was got treated by the 2 appellant at Sankara Nethralaya and it was detected that she has 5% vision in her left eye and 30% vision in her right eye. It has also been averred that she had made several attempts for committing suicide either by trying to jump from the roof or by consuming poison. After the birth of the second child on 30.11.2014 the mental condition of the respondent further deteriorated and her behavior became a danger to the appellant as well as to herself. The respondent on being noticed, appeared and filed her written statement in which she had denied the allegations levelled by the appellant. She has further stated that after solemnization of her marriage with the appellant, there was a demand of Rs. 8 Lacs and her brother and mother somehow managed Rs.5 Lacs and handed over to the appellant. She has also stated in her written statement that the appellant had openly threatened her that being a Doctor he can declare her insane in RINPAS, Ranchi and had also threatened to marry one Sneha with whom he was having an illicit relationship. Several other incidents have been specified by the respondent which according to her would indicate that she was under a trauma on account of the cruelty committed upon her by the appellant. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed :- I. Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form ? II. Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action to file the present suit ? III. Whether respondent wife treated the petitioner husband with cruelty after solemnization of marriage ? IV. Whether the respondent wife has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the 3 respondent ? V. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce ? VI. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief or reliefs as prayed for ? The appellant in course of trial had examined four witnesses including himself while the respondent had examined two witnesses. The appellant who has been examined as P.W.1 has basically reiterated what has been stated by him in his plaint. The other witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant also seem to have supported such allegations. So far as the respondent is concerned, she has denied the allegations in her evidence. It appears that the respondent who is a Bachelor in Agriculture Science from Birsa Agricultural University, Sabor had secured a job in Government of Bihar and is working as an Agriculture Coordinator. She has stated that she had taken up the job in order to meet the expenses arising out of the treatment of her second child who is staying with her and who is suffering from CEREBRAL PALSY. She has also admitted that she is getting around Rs.30,000/- per month by way of salary. The most important Issues which were to be decided, were Issue Nos. III and IV which were related to the cruelty committed by the respondent upon the appellant as well as unsoundness of mind of the respondent. So far as both the Issues are concerned, which are pivotal for deciding the suit preferred by the appellant, the same were answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. As regards the plea of cruelty is concerned, fake allegations seem to have been made by the appellant in his plaint as well as in his evidence during trial. It would appear that out of the said wedlock two children were born to the appellant and the respondent. The first daughter was born on 17.08.2013 while the second daughter was born on 30.11.2014. 4 Though learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant has given vivid descriptions of the cruelty committed by the respondent as well as her erratic behavior which would indicate the unsoundness of mind, but the same has been aptly replied by the learned counsel for the respondent who has submitted that the respondent was ousted from her matrimonial house sometimes in March 2014 when she was already carrying a child and second daughter was born on 30.11.2014; therefore, the period prior to her being ousted from her matrimonial house cannot be considered as cruelty committed by the respondent upon the appellant as the cohabitation between the appellant and the respondent had virtually wiped out the allegations made prior to March 2014. Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that second plea of the appellant with respect to the mental unsoundness of the respondent is concerned, the same also seems to have been contradicted in view of the respondent having secured a Government service being appointed and working as an Agriculture Coordinator. We have considered the submissions advanced by the respective counsels and have also perused the lower court records. So far as the unsoundness of the mind as alleged by the appellant is concerned, it appears that not a single document has been brought on record to substantiate such allegation. Moreover, as per the evidence of the respondent during trial, she had secured a job as an Agriculture Coordinator under the Government of Bihar and her securing a Government job would be sufficient to conclude that the allegations of mental unsoundness by the appellant upon the respondent is palpably false on the face of it. So far as the plea of cruelty is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the second child was born to the couple on 30.11.2014 and the suit was also preferred in the year 2014 after the respondent left her matrimonial house as per the 5 averments made by the appellant and she was ousted from her matrimonial house as per the averments made by the respondent. In either of the situations the allegation of mental cruelty alleged prior to March 2014 cannot be sustained on account of the fact that there was a cohabitation between the appellant and the respondent which resulted in the respondent conceiving and consequently giving birth to a child on 30.11.2014. It is common in a relationship between a husband and wife that some wear and tear takes place and petty domestic quarrels cannot be construed to be a mental cruelty committed by either of the parties to the marriage. As has been noted above, there does not seem to be any specific allegation made by the appellant with respect to the mental cruelty committed by the respondent upon him and in view of the birth of second child in the year 2014 and the suit having been filed in the year 2014 itself, the same would virtually wipe out any sort of allegations which has been levelled prior to the same. Therefore, so far as the Issue Nos. III and IV are concerned, the same have rightly been answered in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. In such circumstances, therefore we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 2nd July 2019 passed by Shri Nalin Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No.107 of 2014 and consequently this appeal stands dismissed. (R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Shamim/-