Back
2020 Supreme(Pat) 365
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, PARTHA SARTHY, JJ.
Kumari Rekha W/O Shambhu Sharan Paswan - Petitioner
Versus
Shambh Sharan Paswan S/O Ghutar Paswan - Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No.501 of 2013
Decided On : 04-06-2020
For the Appellants :Mr. Ajay Thakur, Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Mr. Raj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Divorce – Petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by appellant for dissolution of her marriage with respondent by decree of divorce was dismissed and counter claim of respondent for directing appellant to restore conjugal life with respondent was decreed – Divorce suit was filed by appellant primarily on the ground of mental cruelty – Feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by conduct of other can only be appreciated on assessing attending facts and circumstances in which two partners of matrimonial life have been living – Inference has to be drawn from attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively – In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty – Differences between parties as narrated by them can at best be said to be mere trivial irritations and quarrels which happens in day to day life of married Persons – Case and evidence when reviewed as a whole, would not amount to cruelty – In facts and circumstances of case, petitioner appellant is held not entitled to relief for dissolution of her marriage with respondent by a decree of divorce – Respondent held to be entitled to get a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, as held by court below – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 21, 34 to 36)
Cases Referred:
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate, (2003) 6 SCC 334; K Srinivas vs. K Sunita, 2015 (1) BLJ 16 (SC) : (2014) 16 SCC 34 – Distinguished.
JUDGMENT :
PARTHA SARTHY, J.
The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.2013 and 11.6.2013 respectively whereby the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the appellant for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent by decree of divorce was dismissed and the counter claim of the respondent for directing the appellant to restore conjugal life with the respondent was decreed.
2. The appellant filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 6.1.2009 in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger stating therein that her marriage with the respondent was performed at Keshavpur, Jamalpur as per Hindu rites and customs on 24.4.1999. Out of wedlock, one female child namely, Kanak was born on 7.6.2001.
3. The case of the appellant was that since after the marriage, she was being tortured by the respondent. An agreement was executed on 6.5.2008 which would show that she was being tortured. It was further stated that her parents purchased a piece of land at Albert road in her name where a house was constructed. Thereafter, the respondent forced her to execute a sale deed in his favour and on her refusal, she was assaulted. She states that although after the agreement both led life as husband and wife but the torture continued and as such she sent a legal notice on 25.4.2008 to the respondent. It is stated that she filed a Sanha in the years 2002, 2004 and 2005 and on several occasions tried to pacify the matter but was not successful. Further the case of the appellant is that on competing, she joined as CDPO in Harlakhi Block on 11.3.2008. The respondent went to Madhubani on 31.12.2008 and snatched her salary. Further allegations have been made that the respondent came at the house of the appellant at Madhubani in a drunken state, assaulted her with fists and slaps, keeping her hungry and also calling her ‘kali’ (of dark complexion). It is further stated that he forcibly locked the petitioner’s house at Albert road, snatched the kevala and obtained her signature on a blank piece of paper which can be used for making false document to usurp the house. On 30.10.2008 she was assaulted by the respondent at the railway bridge on her refusal to make the sale deed. Further allegations have been made of the respondent pressing her neck and pouring kerosene oil on her body in an attempt to kill her by setting her on fire. As such the petitioner filed a Title Suit (matrimonial) no. 1 of 2009 in the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger on 6.1.2009 for dissolution of her marriage by a decree of divorce, cost of suit and for any other reliefs to which she is found entitled.
4. A written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent wherein he admitted that the plaintiff was his legally wedded wife and from their wedlock, one child namely, Kanak was born. It was stated that the respondent was appointed as a teacher in the year 1995 and the marriage with respondent was solemnized in the year 1999. After marriage, the plaintiff began to live at her matrimonial home but she started to misbehave with the members of his family. The respondent was pressurized by the plaintiff to leave his family, mother and brother and to reside at his in-laws place or else he and his family members would be implicated in a criminal case. As such in the year 2001-02 the respondent shifted at the parents’ place of the plaintiff where he used to give maintenance and expenses of the plaintiff and himself to his mother-in-law. It is stated that on 25.9.2002 through a registered sale deed he purchased a piece of land at Jamalpur in the name of the plaintiff and constructed a house on the same in the year 2003. Thereafter he and the appellant started to live in the newly constructed house at Jamalpur but the appellant’s mother and brother always used to intervene in their family affairs. On being selected, the appellant joined as C.D.P.O at Harlakhi Block, Madhubani
