Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Devi, Wife of Sanjay Yadav, Daughter of Dineshwar Yadav, Resident v. Sanjay Yadav, Son of Govind Gope, Resident of House No. 171, Bandh Basti, Kamal
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 303 of 2018 ---- Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Devi, Wife of Sanjay Yadav, Daughter of Dineshwar Yadav, Resident of Jhirkey Basti, P.O. Kathara, P.S. Gomia, District-Bokaro. …..Appellant Versus Sanjay Yadav, Son of Govind Gope, Resident of House No. 171, Bandh Basti, Kamal Tola, P.O. Kathara, P.S. Gomia, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand). ….Respondent -------- Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Appellant For the Respondent :Mr.AnkurAnand,A.P.P. -------- : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate 17/21/06/2023
Legal Reasoning
Heard the parties. -------- 2. This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 4.7.2018 and decree
Legal Reasoning
dated 12.7.2018 passed in Original Suit No. 308 of 2016 by Shri Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the respondent herein was allowed and his marriage with the appellant was dissolved with effect from 4.7.2018. 3. The respondent had preferred a suit being Original Suit No. 308 of 2016 for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in which it was stated that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized on 30.4.2007 as per Hindu Rites & Customs. In course of the marital life, the behavior of the appellant changed, who became more aggressive, arrogant and whimsical. The respondent and his family members had tried his best to convince the appellant to lead a happy conjugal life but of no avail. It has been stated that the appellant was got admitted in a Para Medical Course at RIMS, Ranchi and the respondent also started staying at Ranchi and the entire expenses of the course was borne by the respondent. After obtaining a degree in Para Medical Course, the appellant started doing a private job and neglected her conjugal life and she expressed her desire that the respondent is not fit for her and she wants to lead an independent life. On 20.6.2013, the appellant had withdrawn herself from the life of the respondent and started living at a separate place without informing the respondent and therefore it is the case of the respondent that since 20.6.2013 the appellant had deserted him. A suit was preferred by the respondent under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 being T ( M) (S) No. 70 of 2015 dated 2.3.2015 but the appellant appeared and showed her reluctance to lead her conjugal life with the appellant, which further led to an application preferred under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage through mutual consent vide T.M.S. No. 156 of 2015. As per the agreement between the parties, the appellant was to receive Rs.2,00,000/- as permanent alimony as well as future maintenance out of which the appellant had received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of admission of the application for dissolution of marriage by 2 First Appeal No. 303 of 2018 mutual consent but subsequently on account of the non-appearance of the appellant, the said suit was dismissed. The respondent has further stated in the plaint that from the initiation of the marriage, he was subjected to cruelty and torture by the appellant and therefore he was constrained to file a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. 4. On being noticed, the appellant herein had appeared before the court below and had filed her written statement in which she has denied the allegations levelled by the respondent though the factum of marriage has been admitted. It has been stated that the suit for dissolution of marriage was preferred by the respondent as he was inclined to solemnize marriage with another lady. She has further stated that she is ready to live with the respondent and is further more agreeable to save her matrimonial life. 5. After consideration of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:- (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether there is any valid cause of action for filing the suit? (iii) Whether the respondent has withdrawn herself from the society of her husband-appellant and has been living separately since 20.6.2013? (iv) Whether the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty? (v) Whether the appellant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for? 6. Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent has failed to make out a case for dissolution of marriage on the ground of mental cruelty and desertion. It has been submitted that merely on account of the non-appearance of the appellant in the suit filed under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the same cannot be construed to be a mental cruelty or reluctance on the part of the appellant to resume her conjugal life with the respondent. It has been submitted that the plaint of the respondent merely contains some vague allegations and there is no specific instance brought on record by the respondent, which would be indicative of the fact of desertion and cruelty upon the respondent. Mr. Sinha further submits that the appellant is ready and willing to resume her conjugal life with the respondent. 7. Mr. Ankur Anand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that several attempts were made by the respondent to resume conjugal life with the appellant but the same failed on account of the adamant attitude of the appellant. It has been submitted that right from the inception of the marriage, the respondent has been treated with cruelty at the hands of the appellant and she had left the house at her own volition on 20.06.2013, which further proves that apart from cruelty the appellant had also deserted the respondent. Mr. Anand while referring to the suit for restitution of conjugal rights has submitted that the same could not come to its logical end on account of the reluctance on the part of the appellant to resume her conjugal life with the respondent and the suit preferred under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act would further buttress the mental cruelty heaped upon the respondent as in spite of taking 50% of the agreed amount of permanent alimony and future 3 First Appeal No. 303 of 2018 maintenance she did not choose to appear, which resulted in the dismissal of the suit. It has been submitted that the learned court below has considered these aspects of the matter while allowing the suit preferred by the respondent. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Lower Court Records. Issue No. (iii) and Issue No. (iv) appears to be the fulcrum around which the case of the parties revolve. The respondent has examined three witnesses in support of his case and has also brought on record several documentary evidence. P.W-1-Ram Janam Yadav has stated about the marriage of the respondent with the appellant. He has further stated that the appellant did not appear in the suit for dissolution of marriage on mutual consent and lastly the respondent had to prefer the present suit. P.W-2-Sanjay Yadav is the respondent himself who has deposed about his marriage with the appellant, the filing of suit for restitution of conjugal rights as well as the suit under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the manner in which the appellant after taking Rs.1,00,000/- did not appear in the suit which resulted in its dismissal. P.W-3-Govind Gope is the father of the respondent who has stated that the appellant had told his son that she does not want to lead her conjugal life with him. 9. The respondent neither did examine any witness including herself nor did she adduce any documentary evidence in support of her case. 10. The averments made in the plaint and the evidence of the witnesses including that of respondent himself apart from the documentary evidence filed by the respondent would go to show that there was an inclination on the part of the respondent to resume his conjugal life with the appellant, for which the respondent had preferred a suit under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. On account of the reluctance on the part of the appellant to stay with the respondent, the suit was withdrawn in June, 2015. Thereafter, both the parties decided to go their separate ways and as per their agreement, the suit under section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was preferred being T(M)(S) No. 156 of 2015 and it was agreed upon that an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- will be paid by the respondent to the appellant as permanent alimony towards future maintenance. On 7.5.2015, the respondent had paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant, which was duly received by her but in spite of the same she did not appear to pursue the suit and ultimately the same was dismissed for default vide order dated 14.8.2016. 11. The entire sequence of events with respect to filing of the suit would indicate that the appellant was never willing to resume her conjugal life with the respondent and infact by agreeing to file a suit by mutual consent and by accepting 50% of the agreed amount towards permanent alimony and future maintenance, the appellant chose not to appear which would reveal about the cruelty meted out by the appellant to the respondent. Infact the respondent in his plaint as well as in his evidence had categorically stated about the manner in which he was subjected to cruelty by the 4 First Appeal No. 303 of 2018 appellant and these factual aspects were never rebutted by the appellant as though she appeared and filed a written statement which also is very cryptic in nature, no evidence was led by the appellant to contradict the assertions made by the respondent. 12. It would thus appear that right from the inception of the marriage, the appellant did not fulfil her marital obligations and had refused to stay with her husband and had on her own volition left her husband and started staying elsewhere. This would indicate that the appellant had withdrawn herself from the society of the respondent without any reasonable cause. The learned court below has appropriately dealt with Issue No. III and Issue No. IV while allowing the suit in favour of the respondent. The entire scenario as could be derived from the above clearly reveals that apart from the respondent being subjected to mental cruelty by the appellant she had also deserted him and had left his company on her own volition and therefore on both the scores the suit was allowed in favour of the respondent and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved from the date of the order i.e. 4.7.2018. 13. Thus in view of the findings recorded above we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgement dated 4.7.2018 and decree dated 12.7.2018 passed in Original Suit No. 308 of 2016 by Shri Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro and consequently this appeal stands dismissed. ( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) ( Deepak Roshan, J) Rakesh/-