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

2025 Supreme(Pat) 198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. BAJANTHRI and S. B. PD. SINGH, JJ.
Misc. Appeal No.667 of 2018
(19.3.2025)
Mani Bhushan Prasad @ Kanahyajee ... Appellant
vs.
Smt. Dipti Chandra @ Daisy ... Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellant : Mr. Mani Bhushan Pd. Dwivedi, Sr. Adv
For the Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar.

Headnote:

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Dissolution of Marriage – Cruelty and desertion – It is well settled position that cruelty is such of character and conduct as cause in mind of other spouse a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful and injurious for him to live with O.P. – Respondent – In the present case, the appellant – Husband has failed to prove the cruel behavior of the respondent-wife towards him and his family members by the strength of cogent, relevant and reliable evidence – Regarding desertion, during pendency of the case also, the appellant and respondent resided together in a rented house which itself suggests that respondent has not deserted the appellant since 2003, as claimed by the appellant – Such, the appellant is not entitled to get any decree of divorce – The appellant has failed to prove the allegation of cruelty and desertion – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 17, 21 and 24)

S. B. Pd. Singh, J. – Heard the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 impugning the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 251 of 2010, whereby the matrimonial suit, preferred by the appellant, for a decree of divorce, on dissolution of marriage, on the ground of cruelty and desertion, has been dismissed.

3. The case of the appellant as per petition filed before the Family Court is that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu Rites and Custom on 01.05.2001. The appellant works in Railways as Station Master. Out of the wedlock, a girl child namely Aditee was born. After marriage, the respondent went to her matrimonial house and stayed there for about 14 days and thereafter, she went along with her father at her parent’s house. The appellant asked the respondent to accompany him at the place of his posting but she denied. The respondent came at the place of posting of appellant at Baroda on the occasion of Durgapuja along with her brother and one Vijay Kumar, who is said to be the friend of her father. The respondent, in the meanwhile, conceived and when the appellant came along with the respondent on 03.11.2001 to attend Chhati of daughter of his elder brother, mother of the respondent requested the appellant to have first delivery in parental house of the respondent. The appellant accepted the request and sent his wife (respondent) at her parental house and went to his place of posting at Baroda. After some times, when the appellant came to Patna to see his ailing sister, he came to know about the hospitalization of his wife(respondent). He went to the Nursing Home and found that respondent had already delivered a baby girl by cesarean operation. The appellant gave Rs.7000/- to the mother of the respondent towards expense incurred during operation and thereafter went to the place of posting at Baroda to join his job. On several request by the appellant to the respondent to join him at his place of posting, she went there in November, 2002 but returned to her parental home at Patna in January, 2003 on the occasion of Chhathi ceremony of second child of elder brother of the appellant. After ceremony when the appellant told the respondent to join him where he was posted, she desired to go to her Naihar on the pretext to meet her relation, promising to come back but thereafter she did not accompany the appellant. The appellant made several attempt to persuade the respondent to come at Baroda along with children but she refused to live with the appellant. Ultimately, the appellant filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Baroda bearing Case No. HMP 122/2005 on 14.03.2005 for restitution of conjugal rights but in spite of valid service of notice, the respondent never came to live with the appellant. After filing of restitution case by the appellant, respondent has filed Maintenance Case No. 53(M) of 2005 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid case, at the time of reconciliation she pretended that she was willing to live with her husband but it was like crocodile tears because she has been threatening the appellant that she would burn herself and implicate the appellant and his family members in criminal case and they would be sent to jail and appellant will loose his job. Ultimately, vide order dated 10.11.2009, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 5000/- per month to the respondent and Rs. 2000/- per month to his daughter namely Shristi and till date, the appellant is continuously paying the maintenance amount fixed by Family Court. The appellant alleges that respondent has left the society of the appellant without any reasonable excuse since January, 2003 in spite of sincere effort by the appellant to bring her back and lead a happy conjugal life. The respondent is also guilty of crue

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