Nand Kumar Ram son of Shrawan Ram, resident of village Patki, P.O. & P.S v. Smt. Muniya Devi wife of Sri Nand Kumar Ram, D/o Sri Naresh Ram, resident
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No.80 of 2022 ------ Nand Kumar Ram son of Shrawan Ram, resident of village Patki, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District Latehar. ----- Appellant Versus Smt. Muniya Devi wife of Sri Nand Kumar Ram, D/o Sri Naresh Ram, resident of village Patki, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District Latehar, presently residing at village Jalimkala, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District Latehar. ----- Respondent ------ CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Appellant For the Respondent ------- : Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate Mr. A.K. Jha, Advocate Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate :Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, Advocate ------- CAV on 09.09.2024 Pronounced on 01/10/2024 JUDGMENT Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 07.07.2022 (decree signed on 21.07.2022) passed by
Legal Reasoning
Sri Rajeev Anand, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Latehar in Original Suit No. 02 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 has been dismissed. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court. 4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had filed a suit under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (respondent herein) wherein it has 2 been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent in the year 2006 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of the said wedlock, a son and a daughter were born. After the marriage, the respondent came to her matrimonial house and in 2014 when the petitioner shifted to Ranchi, the respondent showed her real character and refused to stay with the petitioner in spite of his best efforts. It has been stated that in last Dussehra, the petitioner was in his house when he found his uncle Mahesh Ram and the respondent together fully naked. On witnessing such immoral conduct, the petitioner went into a depression and although he tried to convince the respondent not to talk with Mahesh Ram, but the respondent was not ready to be separated from Mahesh Ram. The petitioner after the said incident became careful about the activity of the respondent and started regularly checking her mobile and it was found that there were frequent calls on mobile number 7462017088. The petitioner had received the call details from JIO operator and it was found that there was a regular contact between the mobile of the respondent and the holder of mobile no. 7462017088 and in Truecallar App he had identified the said number as belonging to Mahesh Ram. The respondent on coming to know about such verification exercise done by the petitioner, had threatened to implicate every one of his family in false cases. It has been stated that the respondent became more aggressive and on 15.01.2021 the respondent and Mahesh Ram were caught red-handed of being involved in physical relationship. The petitioner had immediately arranged for a meeting with the family members and Mahesh Ram and his father signed on the agreement paper wherein Mahesh Ram became ready to solemnize marriage with the respondent. Since the year 2014 the respondent had developed intimacy with Mahesh Ram who used to frequent the house of the petitioner in his absence and whenever the petitioner and his mother objected, they were abused by the respondent. Several times Panchayats were held in which the respondent had given undertaking to mend her ways, but she continued with her relationship with Mahesh Ram. 3 5. The respondent, on being noticed, had appeared and had filed a written statement in which she has denied the allegations leveled against her by the petitioner. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication: (i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action for the present suit ? (iii) Whether the defendant has voluntary sexual intercourse with any other person other than her spouse after solemnization of her marriage ? (iv) Whether the defendant has treated her husband with cruelty? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as claimed? 7. The petitioner has examined as many as five witnesses in support of its case. 8. PW 1 Nand Kumar Ram is the petitioner who has stated that his marriage was solemnized with the respondent in the year 2006 as per Hindu rites and customs at Maa Ugratara Mandir, Chandwa, Latehar and after marriage two children were born to them. In the year 2014 he had to shift to Ranchi at his workplace in BAIF, but the respondent refused to accompany him in spite of his trying to convince her to shift to Ranchi. In the last Dussehra when he had come home, he had found his uncle Mahesh Ram and the respondent in a compromising position and witnessing such immoral act shocked him and he went into a depression. The respondent refused to separate from Mahesh Ram in spite of his best efforts. After the incident, he started keeping a watch over the activities of the respondent and it was found that there was a regular conversation between the respondent and the holder of mobile number 7462017088 and from verification of Truecaller App, the said number was found to be belonging to Mahesh Ram. When the respondent was confronted, she became furious 4 and threatened to implicate him and his family members in a false case. On 15.01.2021, the respondent and Mahesh Ram were caught red handed by him and his family members in a compromising position. The father of Mahesh Ram and Mahesh Ram had signed on a stamp paper agreeing to solemnize marriage with the respondent. He has stated that from 2014 he and the respondent are staying separate and there is no chance of resumption of marital ties between them. He has proved the agreement which has been marked as Exhibit-1. In cross examination, he has deposed that the respondent is staying separate from him since 2021. He maintains the respondent as well as the children. The children sometimes stay with him and sometimes with the respondent. The stamp paper in which the agreement was executed, was purchased by Mahesh Ram. He has not solemnized another marriage. In the year 2007 the respondent had instituted a dowry related case against him. He has a cordial relationship with the family of Mahesh Ram. The respondent stays in his house along with his parents and a disabled child. The provisions are also sent by him to his wife and he also maintains her. 9. PW 2 Nand Kumar Ram has, in his sworn statement, stated similar to that of PW 1. He has proved his signature in the agreement, which has been marked as Exhibit-1/a. In cross examination, he has deposed that he is the father of the petitioner. There are two cases going on between him and Mahesh Ram. He does not know as to whether any Panchayat was held or not. He stays with his daughter-in-law, his wife, his differently abled daughter and grandchildren. He does not know what is written in his sworn statement. 10. PW 3 Birju Ram Mochi’s sworn statement is similar to that of PW 1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not have any knowledge about the contents of his sworn statement. He has deposed that a Panchayati was held last year in which the 5 relationship between the petitioner, respondent and Mahesh Ram was the focal point. Mahesh Ram had done something wrong with the respondent, as a result of which the petitioner was ostracized from the society. The respondent, at the present moment, stays at her matrimonial home and does not have any cause for complaint. 11. PW 4 Girija Kumar has made a similar statement as that of PW 1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the petitioner is his elder brother. The respondent and her two children stays at his house and maintains a cordial relationship and there is no cause for complaint against the respondent. 12. PW 5 Aditya Kumar Ravi has stated in his sworn statement what has been stated by PW 1. In cross-examination he has deposed that the petitioner is his cousin brother. 13. The respondent has examined three witnesses including herself. 14. DW 1 Muniya Devi is the respondent who has stated about her marriage solemnized with the petitioner in the year 2006 and the birth of two children out of the said wedlock. In the year 2014 she left with the petitioner for Jamshedpur where the petitioner worked in BAIF. In 2018 the petitioner had sent her to her matrimonial house in the village after which the behaviour of the petitioner towards her underwent a considerable change. When she explored this change of behaviour, she came to know that the petitioner has surreptitiously solemnized another marriage with one Kumkum Kumari. After the marriage the petitioner used to forcibly bring his second wife to his house and threaten her of divorce. She has stated that she is still ready to stay with the petitioner. In cross-examination she has deposed that in 2007 she had filed a dowry related case against her husband and in-laws in which a compromise was effected. When her husband had brought another woman to the house, she had filed a case in the police 6 station in the year 2018. She has filed two cases against her husband. She stays in the mud house of her husband which is in a precarious condition. Her husband has solemnized marriage with Kumkum Devi. She has denied that there was an illicit relationship between her and Mahesh Ram. She receives regular calls on her mobile from the mobile no. 7462017088 which belongs to Mahesh Ram and she converses with the mother, sister and wife of Mahesh Ram. 15. DW 2 Vinod Yadav is acquainted with both the sides and he has stated that the petitioner had disclosed that Kumkum Devi is his second wife who sings in an orchestra party. Respondent was tortured by the petitioner due to his second wife and was always threatened that she will be divorced by him. In cross-examination he has deposed that the petitioner and the respondent are staying separate for the last four years and there is no relationship between them. 16. DW 3 Arvind Yadav has stated similar to that of DW 2 in his sworn statement. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the petitioner and the respondent are staying separate for 4 - 5 years and there is no relationship between them. 17. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has submitted that the case of the petitioner has been proved by oral and documentary evidence. The respondent was having an illicit relationship with Mahesh Ram and she was also caught in a compromising position with Mahesh Ram by the petitioner and his family members involved in a voluntary sexual intercourse and the undertaking executed by Mahesh Ram further substantiates such assertion. The learned trial court has misconstrued such undertaking which has been signed by several witnesses. 18. Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that Exhibit-1 is a doubtful piece of evidence and rightly the learned trial court has not placed any 7 reliance on the same. It has been submitted that the petitioner has solemnized a second marriage with Kumkum Devi and in order to legitimize such marriage, the case of divorce has been filed against the respondent based on false accusations. 19. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 20. Issue no. (iii) is the dominant issue which relates to having voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than the spouse. Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 has been invoked as the petitioner has cast aspersions upon the respondent of having indulged herself in sexual intimacies with her paternal father-in-law Mahesh Ram. Surprisingly, Mahesh Ram who seems to be the main character in the play set up by the petitioner, has not been made a party to the suit. It was Mahesh Ram who is said to have executed an undertaking that he is in love with the respondent and is ready to solemnize marriage with her. This document is dated 15.02.2021 which has been marked as Exhibit- 1 and it does not bear the signature of the respondent. The same is a unilateral document and it would be of no consequence to the allegations made by the petitioner because of its exclusive nature. So far as the oral evidences are concerned, the allegation appears to be bald and contrary to the fact that the respondent is still staying at her matrimonial house in a village with her in-laws and no allegation of misbehaviour or cruelty has been cast upon her. On the other hand, the respondent and her witnesses have stated about the petitioner solemnizing a second marriage with Kumkum Devi and this was the reason for seeking divorce. Even if we leave aside the allegation of contracting a second marriage by the petitioner, what remains is the failure on the part of the petitioner to prove the allegation of infidelity made by him against the respondent. The learned trial court has framed Issue no.(iv) which relates to cruelty, but such Issue stems from the alleged illicit relationship between the respondent and Mahesh Ram and since we have negated Issue no. (iii) as a natural corollary, Issue no.(iv) also fades into oblivion. 8 21. The learned trial court has correctly decided all the issues against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent and having found no material to conclude otherwise, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 22. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, stands closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Shamim/-