Manish Bhagat, Son of Ghan Shyam Bhagat, residing at Anand Apartment, G.T. Road, Opposite v. Shalu Kumari, Wife of Manish Bhagat, daughter of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 96 of 2022 ------ Manish Bhagat, Son of Ghan Shyam Bhagat, residing at Anand Apartment, G.T. Road, Opposite Church School, Asansol Marble House, P.O. P.S. Asansol, District-Burdwan (W.B.). --- Appellant Versus Shalu Kumari, Wife of Manish Bhagat, daughter of Dr. Pramod Kumar, residing at Hill View Colony, Road no. 3, Holding No. 15, M.G.M, Mango, P.O. P.S. MGM, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. --- Respondent ------ Coram: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -------- For the Appellant For the Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate : None -------- JUDGEMENT 06/15.5.2023 Heard Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.4.2022 passed in Original Suit No. 446 of 2019 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. 2, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the respondent for dissolution of marriage has been decreed ex parte against the present appellant. 3. The respondent herein had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage under section 13 (i) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act being Original Matrimonial Suit No. 446 of 2019 in which inter alia it was stated as follows:- (a) That the marriage of the respondent and the appellant was solemnized on 14.12.2015 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. (b) That after marriage, the respondent had gone to her matrimonial house and she was tortured by various means which constrained her to institute a criminal case being G.R. Case No. 2102 of 2017. (c) After marriage, there was no relationship between the respondent and the appellant as such there was no issue. (d) The appellant always used to come in a drunken state and assault the respondent by various means and she was also not given proper food and cloths. (e) On 6.7.2016, the appellant had thrown out the respondent from her matrimonial house and she started residing in her parents’ house. (f) In spite of several attempts made by the respondent to reconcile the matter but everything went in vain and the respondent continued to -2- reside at her parents’ house since 6.7.2016. 4. The appellant herein was noticed and in spite of paper publication he did not appear as such the suit proceeded ex parte. The only point of determination is as to whether the respondent who is the wife of the appellant was treated with cruelty and whether she is entitled to a decree of divorce. In order to establish her case, the respondent had adduced oral evidence being P.W-1 and P.W-2. P.W-1 is the respondent herself who has reiterated what has been stated by her in the plaint and she has also stated that she was mentally and physical tortured by the appellant and ultimately she was forced to leave her matrimonial house on 6.7.2016 and from that period of time she is continuing to reside at her parents’ home. P.W-2-Pramod Kumar is the father of the respondent who has corroborated the contentions made by the respondent in her plaint. He has also stated about the registration of criminal case against the appellant being G.R. Case No. 2102 of 2017. P.W-2 has further reiterated that on 6.7.2016 his daughter was ousted from her matrimonial house and from then on she is continuously residing at his house. 5. Based on the evidence available on record, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. 2, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur vide judgment dated 30.4. 2022 passed in Original Suit No. 446 of 2019 had decreed the suit in favour of the respondent and the marriage between the respondent and the appellant was dissolved, which has constrained the appellant to prefer the present appeal. 6. It has been submitted by Mr. Md. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel or the appellant, that though cruelty was one of the grounds, which was taken by the respondents seeking dissolution of marriage but the same has not been appropriately proved. It has further been submitted that merely on account of the fact that a criminal case was instituted against the appellant and the trial having till date not been concluded would not in any way point to the mental and physical torture committed by the appellant upon the respondent as alleged. It has further been submitted that a suit was preferred by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights being Matrimonial Title Suit No. 399 of 2017, which is still pending. It has further been submitted that since the present suit was decided ex parte, the appellant was prejudiced from putting forward his defence. 7. Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that there is no relationship between husband and wife since 6.7.2016 which is the date on which the appellant had ousted the respondent from her matrimonial house and from which date she has continuously resided -3- at her parents’ house. He has further submitted that the learned court below has appropriately considered all aspects of the matter and has rightly come to a conclusion that cruelty was committed upon the respondent thereby allowing the prayer of the respondent. 8. We have considered rival submissions and have also perused the Lower Court Records. The suit was decided ex parte. It is the categorical case of the respondent that immediately after her marriage she was subjected to torture by the appellant both physical and mental including assaults having been committed upon her and therefore she was forced to leave her matrimonial house on 6.7.2016 and was compelled to reside at her parents’ house where she had continued to stay till the filing of the suit for dissolution of marriage. The evidence of the respondent who has been examined as P.W-1and her father who has been examined as P.W-2 have reiterated the allegations levelled in the plaint against the appellant with respect to the physical and mental torture committed upon her and the fact that the respondent was forced to leave her matrimonial house on 6.7.2016. The averments made in the plaint seems to have been categorically supported by the evidence of P.W-1 and P.W-2 and the same remained unrebutted on account of the appellant having not appeared. 9. The learned court below has discussed the entire aspects of the matter which finds reflected at para 9 and 10 of the impugned judgment. What would fall from the averments made in the plaint and the evidence of the witnesses is that the marriage of the respondent and the appellant had come to a dead end as since 6.7.2016 the respondent is residing at her parents’ house which was one of the reasons which was taken into consideration by the learned court below while granting a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent. 10. Thus on consideration of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgement dated 30.4.2022 passed in Original Suit No. 446 of 2019 by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. 2, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and consequently this appeal is dismissed. Rakesh/- (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J) (Deepak Roshan, J)