SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Pat) 1249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, JITENDRA KUMAR, JJ.
Dinesh Mandal, S/o Late Brishpati Mandal @ Bahaspati Mandal – Appellant
Versus
Chaitali Majumdar W/o Dinesh Mandal – Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 295 of 2018
Decided on : 25-08-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kiran Sinha

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908–Order 9 Rules 2, 3 & 4–Dismissal of suit for non-appearance of parties–in case a suit is dismissed for non-attendance of both the parties, the plaintiff has both options–either to file a application under Rule 4, Order IX of the C.P.C. to get the suit restored by getting the dismissal order set aside or to file or to file a fresh suit–in the present case, filing of fresh suit, which is not time–barred, it is maintainable. (Paras 15 & 16)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955–Section 23–Decree on 'satisfaction' of the Court–'preponderance of probabilities' –Section 23 confers power on the Court to pass a decree it is "satisfied" on matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of its sub-section (1) –considering that the proceedings under the Act are essentially of a civil nature, the word "satisfied" must mean "satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities" and not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt" –Section 23 does not alter the standard of proof in civil cases. (Para 21)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955–Section 13(1)(i-a)–Divorce–cruelty–only pleading regarding cruelty in the present divorce petition being that the Defendant/Respondent is negating the company of the Appellant/Plaintiff–conduct and circumstances created by her causing mental agony and lodging of false criminal case–no specific instance of cruelty either in the pleading or in evidence given–filling of false criminal case may amount to cruelty but from the pleading and evidence on record there is no conclusive proof that the criminal case filed by the Defendant-wife has been dismissed and it has been dismissed, how and for what reason it has been dismissed–withdrawal from the society of a husband not necessarily means cruelty if the spouse withdrawing from the other spouse has valid reason to live separately. (Paras 52 & 53)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955–Section 13(1)(ib)–Divorce on the ground of desertion–as per the Explanation, the expression "desertion" means the desertion of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage without reasonable cause and without the consent or against the wish of such party, and includes the willful neglect of the petitioner by the other party to the marriage, and its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly–in the present case, Appellant/husband has failed to prove that the Respondent/wife has abandoned him without his consent and without reasonable cause with intent to bring cohabitation permanently to an end for more two years at the time of presentation of present petition. (Paras 56 & 62)

Hindu Mariage Act, 1955–Section 13(1)(i)–Divorce on the ground of Adultery–there is not even a whisper in the pleading regarding adulterous life of the Defendant/Respondent, nor alleged adulterer has been impleaded as Defendant before the Family Court–moreover, this is settled principle of law that any evidence deposed beyond the pleadings cannot be considered for grant of relief–there is no merit in the present appeal warranting any interferences in the impugned judgment–Appeal dismissed–impugned judgment rejecting the divorce petition upheld. (Paras 64, 70 & 71)

1975(2) SCC 326, AIR 1988 SC 121, 2005(2) SCC 22, 2013 SCC Online Ker 24493, 2002(2) SCC 619, 1955 SCC Online MP 83, 1995 SCC OnLine P&H 56, ILR (1973) I Delhi 944, (2007)4 SCC 511, 2010 SCCR 265, 2015(11) SCC 539, (2006)3 SCC 778, AIR 1957 SC 176, AIR 1964 SC 40, 2002(2) SCC 73, (2022)5 SCC 459, (2011)12 SCC 695, AIR 1953 SC 235, 2010(4) SCC 518, (2011)11 SCC 786, ILR (2010) 111 Delhi 315, (1987)2 SCC 555, (1975)1 SCC 212, (2008)17 SCC 491–Referred.

JUDGMENT :

JITENDRA KUMAR, J.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, impugning the judgment dated 18.04.2017 passed by Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Katihar, in Matrimonial Case (Divorce) No. 560 of 2012, whereby the petition filed under Section 13(1)(i), praying for decree of divorce, has been dismissed ex parte.

2. The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff as per the pleadings is that he was married with the Respondent in the year 1980 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and out of the wedlock, two children were born, one is son, Devashis Mandal, who is aged about 27 years and the second is daughter Chandrani Mandal, who is aged about 25 years. It is further averred that after solemnization of the marriage, both the parties began to lead happy and prosperous conjugal life. But, in 1997, the Defendant/Respondent left the company of the Appellant/Plaintiff and began to live in a hospital quarter. The Plaintiff/Appellant left no stone unturned to mend the way of the Defendant/Respondent but of no avail. It is further averred that the Defendant/Respondent filed a Complaint Case No. 1249 of 2000, in the Court of Ld. C.J.M., alleging torture and harassment and this complaint is still pending and the marriage bond between the parties has completely broken down. It is further averred that the Plaintiff/Appellant made several attempts to repair the matrimonial bond but the Defendant/Respondent is negating the company of the Appellant. It is further averred that the conduct and circumstances created by the Defendant/Respondent is humiliating and causing mental cruelty because she had roped the Appellant in false criminal case due to which the life of the Plaintiff/Appellant has become miserable and he is feeling humiliated in both private and public life. And hence, the Plaintiff/Appellant is not in a position to live with the Defendant/Respondent. It is further informed that earlier a Matrimonial Case No. 30 of 2000, was filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant in the Court of Ld. District and Sessions Judge, Katihar, in which the Defendant/Respondent had appeared and filed her written statement. Reconciliation proceedings was also conducted. However, the Defendant/Respondent had completely refused to go with the Appellant to lead a conjugal life. It is further averred that the said matrimonial case/suit could not be contested by the Plaintiff/Appellant and hence, that case was dismissed due to lack of proper pairvi and the suit could not attain finality. It is further averred that his marriage has irretrievably broken down and there is no emotional substratum in the marriage. The matrimonial bond is beyond repair and the marriage is only for the sake of name. It is further averred that the Defendant/Respondent has been living separately from the company of the Plaintiff/Appellant for about 15 years and hence, he is claiming that the Plaintiff/Appellant is entitled to Decree of Divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties.

3. On notice, the Defendant did not appear. Hence, she was proceeded ex parte. During the ex parte trial, the following three witnesses were examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant :

    i) PW-1 -Pardeshi Kamti

ii) PW-2-Sabjo Sachi Ghosh

iii) PW-3 -Dinesh Mandal, who is plaintiff himself

4. The Appellant/Plaintiff has also got the following documents exhibited :

    i) Exhibit No.1 -Order Sheets of the Matrimonial Case No. 30 of 2000.

ii) Exhibit No. 2 – A copy of the Matrimonial Petition No. 30 of 2000.

5. Pardeshi Kamti, who has been examined as PW-1, is acquainted with both the parties and in her examination-in-chief filed by way of affidavit she has reiterated the statements as made by the Plaintiff/Appellant in his petition. She has also deposed that the Defendant/Respondent is working as a nurse in a Government hospital and she is living separately from the Plaintiff/Appellant for 19 years and the matrimonial life between the parties is completely over. To Court questio

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top