Dr. Niraj Kumar Chaudhary v. Rimjhim
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI First Appeal No. 385 of 2018 Dr. Niraj Kumar Chaudhary ----- Appellant Versus Rimjhim ----- Respondent ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Anand Kr. Sinha, Advocate Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J. ------- 17/ 04.04.2024 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.8.2018 (decree signed on 6.9.2018) passed in Original Suit No. 218 of 2016 by Shri Satya Prakash Sinha, Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder the Suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent has been dismissed. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in this judgment are referred to as per their status before the learned trial court. The petitioner (appellant herein) had preferred a Suit under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent (respondent herein) and the averments in the plaint reveal that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 22.06.2007 at Jamshedpur as per Hindu rites and customs. The marriage solemnized was a negotiated one and after marriage, the respondent started residing at her matrimonial house along with her husband and in laws where the marriage was Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) consummated. The petitioner is a Neurosurgeon posted at TMH, Jamshedpur since 2007. It has been stated that the initial days of marriage passed peacefully, but thereafter, the situation started deteriorating and it became apparent that the respondent was not behaving like a normal newly married wife. She started behaving rudely with her husband and parents in law. The respondent also used to spend her time talking over mobile with unknown persons. She also did not take any interest in the household chores and the same was being done by the old mother of the petitioner including cooking of food. Whenever she was approached to do the domestic works, she retorted bluntly by saying that she is not inclined to do such type of things. The respondent always used to demand money from the petitioner for purchasing luxurious and costly personal items for herself. It has been stated that the respondent was in the habit of frequently visiting her parents house without seeking permission from her husband or in-laws. She also did not heed the elderly advice of her parents in law and categorically stated that she does not want any interference in her private life. Due to the adamant attitude of the respondent, there were frequent quarrels, which was not conducive for a happy and peaceful domestic life. After a few months of marriage, the respondent started pressurizing the petitioner to leave his parents and take up a separate accommodation, which the petitioner refused. In May 2008, the respondent all of a sudden even without the consent of either the petitioner or in laws left for Noida, New Delhi and came back to Jamshedpur after 11 months. During the said period, there was no communication between the respondent and her husband and in laws. She even refused to disclose the purpose of her visit to Noida. Apprehending being at the receiving end of a false case being instituted by the respondent, the father of the petitioner had filed an informatory application being Informatory Petition No. 47 of 2010 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. It has been stated that the respondent is an MBA and she insisted upon the petitioner to search for a suitable job for her. When the petitioner acceded to her request and disclosed that he would try for a job for 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) her at Jamshedpur she flatly refused as she wanted a job at distant places like Delhi, Bombay, Pune, etc. She had also faced some interviews, but she was not selected. Inability of the respondent to secure a job for herself made her frustrated and the same resulted in the atmosphere of the house becoming more vicious. The mother in law of the petitioner was informed by the petitioner about the activities of her daughter at which she came and stayed at the house of the petitioner for three days, but instead of pacifying the situation, the same became aggravated and in fact the respondent and her mother threatened the petitioner of being implicated in false cases. The respondent had left the house of the petitioner in October 2010in the name of appearing in an examination and she did not return back till the end of December 2012.During this period also, there was no communication between the petitioner and the respondent. After a gap of almost four years, the respondent suddenly came to her matrimonial house on
Legal Reasoning
14.12.2014 and at that point of time the petitioner was at Srinagar pursuing his medical studies. On 15.12.2014, the relatives of the respondent came to Jamshedpur and threatened the parents of the petitioner with dire consequences, if any action is taken against the respondent for her long absence from her matrimonial house. The respondent had again left her matrimonial house on 1.1.2015 as she had gone to Jalandhar on a teaching assignment at Lovely Professional University as per her own version. She had come back on 19.12.2015 and after staying for a week, left for Gwalior on 29.12.2015 where, according to her, she was teaching in Amity University. The respondent has failed to perform her marital obligations, had insulted, abused and assaulted the petitioner and his old parents and has deprived the petitioner of conjugal happiness. On being noticed, the respondent had filed a written statement in which she has denied the allegations leveled against her in the plaint by the petitioner. She has denied neglecting the petitioner at any point of time and still she wants to lead a blissful marital life. The marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent was a negotiated marriage and the entire demands 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) of the petitioner was fulfilled by the widow mother of the respondent. Cash, gold ornaments, household articles, etc. were given in the marriage to the petitioner. After marriage, the respondent came to Jamshedpur where she started residing in the company quarters of the petitioner. The niece of the petitioner, aged 14 years, was also residing with the petitioner and his parents. The respondent after the marriage was dutiful towards the petitioner and her in laws and loved and cared for them. It is false to claim that the respondent was leading a glamorous life; on the contrary, she looked after the household chores being a dutiful wife and daughter-in-law. It has been stated that the mother-in-law of the respondent is a dominating lady and she did not like the respondent taking independent decisions in relation to cooking and what food the inmates of the house would have. In her nine years of marriage she was taken by the petitioner for outing on two occasions; once to Jubilee Park and the other at an official party. The respondent at no point of time, had traveled alone without the permission of her husband and in laws. Only in December 2014, she had traveled alone from Jalandhar to Jamshedpur. The respondent till date has not filed any case against her husband and in laws. It is with the support and encouragement of the respondent that the petitioner could complete his higher studies as a Neurosurgeon in Jammu and Kashmir. Both the petitioner and the respondent had decided that they will have children once the petitioner completes his higher studies and the respondent permanently secures a job. The respondent had never insisted the petitioner after the marriage to stay separate from her parents. In fact, the petitioner himself was living separate from his parents since the year 2011 in order to pursue higher studies. The respondent had resided in Noida, New Delhi for 11 months with the consent of her husband and in-laws, as she was pursuing a job. The mother of the respondent had visited Jamshedpur and had resided with the petitioner and his parents at Vijaya Gardens as well as at Sakchi for a day or two and the respondent recollects of having a peaceful time. It has been stated that it is the mother of the petitioner who has always tried to create a rift between the 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) petitioner and the respondent and the mother of the petitioner suffers from insecurity whenever the petitioner and the respondent led a peaceful conjugal life. It has further been stated that the respondent had been visiting her matrimonial house during her leave and had spent conjugal life with her husband. It has also been stated that the respondent is a lecturer and is also pursuing her PhD as per the advice of her husband and in laws. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication:- I. Is the suit as framed maintainable ? II. Whether the applicant has valid cause of action ? III. whether the respondent has committed acts of cruelty on the applicant sufficient for the purpose of divorce ? IV. Whether the applicant is entitled to a decree of divorce ? V. To what other relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled to? The petitioner has examined as many as three witnesses including the petitioner in support of his case. PW 1 Dr. Niraj Kumar Chaudhary is the petitioner himself who has stated about his marriage with the respondent and the marriage was consummated after the respondent started residing at her matrimonial house. He is working as a Neurosurgeon in TMH. The respondent after her marriage had stayed peacefully for a few days, after which there was a surprising change in the behavior of the respondent as she started behaving rudely with him as well as his parents. The respondent never took any interest in any work and never cooked food and it was his old mother who used to cook food as well as do the domestic chores. When she was advised to respect the elders and stay together in a respectful manner, the respondent used to lose temper and clearly stated that she has no interest in the household works. The respondent also used to regularly demand money from him and used to spend it lavishly. The respondent as and when she wanted used to go to her parents house without giving any information to him and his parents. With time the behavior of the respondent 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) turned from bad to worse and she used to abuse him and his parents. He has stated that after a few days of marriage, the respondent started pressurizing him to reside separately from his parents which was not acceptable to him and which also resulted in taking place of regular quarrels. In May 2008 the respondent without any intimation left for Noida, New Delhi from where she returned after 11 months and during this period she did not communicate with him. When asked about her absence and the reasons thereof, she flatly refused to disclose and in fact threatened him. Since the behavior of the respondent was becoming more cruel day by day, there hung a cloud of being implicated in a false case and in order to dispel such anticipation his father had filed an informatory application before the court of CJM, Jamshedpur. The respondent is an MBA and she had a desire to do a job for which he started searching for a job in Jamshedpur, but the same was not acceptable to the respondent as she wanted her workplace to be in bigger cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Pune, etc. The respondent had faced interviews at 2-3 places, but she was not successful in securing a job. He had informed the mother of the respondent about the conduct and cruel behavior of the respondent at which she came and stayed for two - three days and instead of pacifying the situation, aggravated the same. To save himself from any further implications in a false case, he had filed an informatory application before the court of CJM and a written report was also given to Birsanagar P.S. On 24.12.2010 on the pretext of giving NEET examination, she left the house and did not return till December 2012 and during this period there was no communication between them. She had all of a sudden come back on 14.12.2014 at which point of time he was in Jammu and Kashmir for further studies. On the next day, the relatives of the respondent came and issued threats to his parents. Once again on 1.1.2015 the respondent without any intimation left for Jalandhar and she had disclosed that she was imparting education in Lovely Professional University. She returned back on 19.12.2015 and after staying for 10 days she left for Gwalior on 29.12.2015 where, as per her own version, she was teaching in Amity University. The 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) respondent by her conduct and behavior has treated him with cruelty and due to her actions he has been deprived of marital bliss. In cross-examination, he has deposed that after instituting the Suit, the respondent had come and stayed with him. After marriage, he had stayed for four years at Jamshedpur and in the year 2011 had left for Kolkata for studies. He does not know as to when the respondent has done a job. It is a fact that the respondent has not instituted a case under Section 498Aof IPC against him or his family members. She has also not made any other complaints anywhere. He has not filed any case for bringing back his wife. It is true that the respondent had tried for a job in Jamshedpur but she was not successful. She was twice taken for interview by him and by his father. His mother-in-law had come to his house on two - three occasions. P.W.2 Udaikant Choudhary is the father of the petitioner who has supported the case of the petitioner. In cross-examination he has deposed that the respondent had last come to their house at Vijaya Gardens on 18.6.2016 and had left on 28/29.6.2016.At the time of his marriage, the petitioner was already working and later on for higher studies he had stayed at Kolkata for one year and Srinagar for three years. On 14.12.2014 the respondent had come to his house and at that point of time the petitioner was in Srinagar. After spending some time she left for Gwalior on 1.1.2015 where she had a job. He has denied of interfering in the family life of the petitioner and the respondent. He does not have any objection, if the respondent leaves her job and resumes her marital life with the petitioner at Jamshedpur. It is not true that the respondent splurges money. PW 3 Vijay Shankar Mishra is acquainted with the petitioner and he regularly visits the house of the petitioner. Even after the marriage of the petitioner he used to frequent the house of the petitioner and he had witnessed the change in behavior of the 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) respondent. Her behavior towards her husband and parents-in-law was cruel and humiliating. The respondent had stopped doing domestic chores and was busy in going outside and taking care of herself. He used to see the mother of the petitioner cooking food and wherever the petitioner and his parents tried to reason with her, the respondent would react and would ask them to keep quiet. She also used to abuse them. The respondent used to pressurize the petitioner to keep his parents separate, which would agonize the petitioner mentally. The behavior of the respondent shattered the marital life of the petitioner and it affected his medical profession. During the marriage the respondent had left the house of the petitioner without informing her. Wherever she wished, she would go out. She wanted to do some job outstations and she did not want to stay in a small town like Jamshedpur. The respondent used to threaten the petitioner and his parents of falsely implicating them in a dowry related case. On 24.12.2010 on the pretext of giving the examinations of NEET she had gone to Saharsa to her mother, where she stayed for one year and there was no communication between the petitioner and the respondent during that period. He has stated that after four years she returned back to the house of the petitioner on 14th December and she disclosed that she is working in Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar. On the next day, some relatives of the respondent came to the house of the petitioner and put pressure upon the old parents of the petitioner and threatened them of being implicated in a false case. On 1.1.2015 the respondent proceeded for Jalandhar alone and after one year returned to the petitioner’s house on 19.12.2015 and on 29.12.2015 she left for Gwalior where she was working in Amity University. In cross-examination, he has deposed that the petitioner had tried to keep the respondent with him till 2015. The respondent had stayed outside Jamshedpur after her marriage for three years six months. The petitioner and his parents did not want the respondent to go outside to do a job. The respondent had gone to Patna for giving the examination of NEET with the permission of 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) the petitioner. The petitioner had disclosed to him that the respondent sends him messages. The respondent has examined as many as five witnesses in support of her case. RW.1 Rimjhim @ Rimjhim Jha is the respondent who has stated about solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner on 22.06.2007 at Jamshedpur as per Hindu rites and customs. She has expressed her desire to continue her marital life with the petitioner. The petitioner had instituted the suit for divorce on 13.5.2016 and she had stayed with the petitioner and her parents in law till 28.5.2016.Her father-in-law used to take her to all the interviews, but she was not successful in securing a job at Jamshedpur. Due to the pressure created by the petitioner and his parents, she had to go out of Jamshedpur for higher studies and on passing the examination she had secured the job of a lecturer at Gwalior. Her husband and parents in law were aware about her job and she used to regularly converse with the petitioner over phone. She used to come to her matrimonial house on holidays and when the petitioner had gone to Kolkata and Jammu and Kashmir for higher studies, she used to frequent her matrimonial house. In December 2010 she passed out the examination conducted by UGC and she started doing a job. She had fulfilled the duties and responsibilities of a wife, but the petitioner banking upon false allegations, wants to divorce her. She has stated that her father had died before her marriage and her mother used to work as a teacher. Due to the demand of her in laws amounts were handed over to them through cash or draft. After the marriage, she had started residing in her matrimonial house with the petitioner, his parents and the niece of the petitioner. She has denied the allegations leveled against her by the petitioner, rather she had taken care of her in laws. She has started doing a job on the wishes of the petitioner and his parents. She has not lodged any complaint anywhere against the petitioner or her parents in law. Even today she is ready to leave her job and resume her marital life with the petitioner and her in laws. 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) In cross examination, she has deposed that after the marriage she had remained for a total period of four and half years with the petitioner. In 2010 she had gone to give her examinations with the petitioner and in 2014 she had come back to stay with the petitioner. Between 2010 - 2014, the petitioner used to come and meet her. She had stayed at her mother's place from 2010 to 2013 and during the period 2013 -14 she taught at Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar. The petitioner used to come to Jalandhar from Srinagar to meet her. Whenever the petitioner came to Jalandhar, he used to stay in a hotel. She is at present in Amity University teaching management. She has denied that in 10 years of her marital life, she had deliberately not established physical relationship with him. Last time she had come to meet the petitioner was on 17.5.2016 and she had left on 28.5.2016. R.W.2 Rajesh Thakur is acquainted with both the sides who has stated that prior to the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner and his father had taken dowry through a demand draft prepared in his name. In cross examination, he has stated that he is the cousin brother of the respondent. He does not know as to when the respondent had gone to her matrimonial house and for how many days she had stayed there. RW 3Col. Durganand Jha is the maternal uncle of the respondent. He has stated about the demand draft given to the father of the petitioner. In cross-examination he has deposed that from the time of marriage till 2016, the respondent had stayed at her matrimonial house for a total period of about three years. RW 4Kanak Lata Jha is the mother of the respondent, who has reiterated the statement of the respondent (R.W.1). In cross examination, she has deposed that the respondent had stayed with the petitioner even after the case was filed. It is true that for the period 2010 - 14, her daughter stayed 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) separate from her son in law. On 17.5.2016, the respondent had gone to the house of the petitioner and she left on 29.5.2016. R.W.5 Manbudh Pramanik has stated that he had encashed the demand draft amount of Rs. 3 lakhs in the bank and then handed over the cash in the house of the petitioner. In cross examination, he has deposed that he does not have any proof with respect to handing over the cash of Rs.3 lakhs to the family members of the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appellant has submitted that the learned court below had overtly relied upon the evidence of the respondent while discarding the allegation of cruelty leveled against the respondent. The evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses highlights the manner in which the respondent conducted herself after the marriage as she refrained from doing the domestic chores and misbehaved with impunity with her husband and her in laws. The respondent used to leave her matrimonial house at her whims and had continuously deserted the petitioner for four years without even informing the petitioner. Though desertion is not an issue framed for adjudication, but desertion and cruelty go hand in hand, which is exemplified in the present case. Mr. Das has referred to the case of Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky reported in (2022) 5 SCC 459. Mr. Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the issue of cruelty could not be proved by the petitioner as he has not given any instance which can be termed to be cruelty. It was the widow Mother of the respondent, who had sponsored the higher studies of the petitioner. Merely because the respondent works outside, the same cannot be termed to be desertion as there was no intentional abandonment of the respondent from the Society of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner has not fulfilled the duties of a husband, as he seems to have exerted no effort to bring back the respondent to her matrimonial house or to know the whereabouts of the respondent. 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. The case of the petitioner so far as cruelty is concerned, seems to stem from the fact that after marriage, the behavior of the respondent towards the petitioner and his parents was acrimonious. The respondent used to go to her parents’ house without informing the petitioner or his family members. There has been a hiatus in the marital ties on account of the respondent leaving her matrimonial house and she had returned after a considerable delay, thus, further aggravating the mental agony of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that there has been intermittent interludes in the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent on account of the respondent, going for higher studies and taking up a job; firstly at Lovely Professional University, Jalandhar and thereafter Amity University at Gwalior. We must also bear in mind that after marriage the petitioner had gone to Kolkata and Srinagar for higher studies. These were the reasons for the witnesses to have deposed that the respondent hardly stayed with the petitioner. PW 3 has stated about the respondent going to Patna to give her NEET examinations by taking the permission of the petitioner. It would thus seem that the respondent was allowed to pursue higher studies and securing a job would be a consequence of completing the higher studies and an inference can be drawn regarding permission given by the petitioner and his family members to the respondent to pursue a job. This conclusion is further enhanced by the evidence of the petitioner (P.W.1) who has stated about the petitioner as well as his father taking the respondent for interviews in respect to securing a job. Mr. Das in course of his submission has referred to the case of Debananda Tamuli v. KakumoniKataky (Supra) mainly relying upon the following : “8. The reasons for a dispute between husband and wife are always very complex. Every matrimonial dispute is different from another. Whether a case of desertion is established or not will depend on the peculiar facts of each 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:JHHC:45153-DB ) case. It is a matter of drawing an inference based on the facts brought on record by way of evidence.” Though Mr. Das has reasoned out that desertion and cruelty are interlinked, but the factual aspects of the case noted above completely negate such submission. We must also indicate here the desire of the respondent to resume her marital life and leaving her job, as stated in her evidence as R.W.1.The allegation of cruelty leveled against the respondent seems to be a normal wear and tear of a marital life and both the parties seem to have stayed apart, primarily on account of their desire to pursue higher studies and secure a job and no acrimony between them have surfaced in their evidence. The evidence of the witnesses also reveals about the respondent staying with the petitioner for a few days even after the suit for divorce was filed by the petitioner. It would also be apparent that though it has been stated by the petitioner that the respondent had left her matrimonial house without informing anyone and returned after a long hiatus, but what is remarkable is the absence on the part of the petitioner in taking efforts to resume the marital ties. The learned court below therefore was justified in deciding Issue No.III in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner based on valid grounds and consequently, we affirm the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2018 (decree signed on 06.09.2018) passed in Original Suit No. 218 of 2016 by Shri Satya Prakash Sinha, Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur and dismiss this appeal. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are closed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) Shamim/- 13