Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 344
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Gayatri Devi – Appellant
Versus
Birendra Prasad – Respondent
Appeal from Original Decree No. 47 of 2011
Decided On : 19-06-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey.
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Dissolution Of Marriage – Cruelty – Appellant is the wife, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, in Matrimonial Case. – The matrimonial suit preferred by the petitioner- husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty in terms of section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed ex-parte. – Held, It can be easily drawn that sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure of normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. – The married life should be reviewed as a whole and few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. – The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of the spouse, the wrong party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer. – Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the marriage life which happens would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty. Judged on the standards and illustrations laid down by the Apex Court, court find that the present case falls short of the ingredients of physical or mental cruelty for the husband to get a decree of divorce. – The marriage was not more than one year old. No such exceptional conduct of sustained abuse or humiliation, torture which would render the life of the other spouse miserable has been made out on the basis of the oral testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses uncorroborated by any other sources or documents. – The wife has in fact stayed for some time in the matrimonial house and as per the case of the petitioner also stayed most of the time in her parents’ house. – This is in itself goes to show that sustained instances of physical or mental cruelty had not occasioned for the husband to have felt threatened of peaceful relationship and happy conjugal life with the wife. – The conduct of the wife even as per the evidence on record may amount to normal wear and tear of married life, which the spouses are required to adjust over a period of time. –Court, therefore, are of the opinion that the learned court has committed error of law and on facts in proceeding to decree the suit in favour of the husband. – Appeal Allowed
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Though respondent has appeared on notice through their counsel but no one appears today on behalf of him.
2. Appellant is the wife, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce dated 13.01.2010 /28.01.2010, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau, Daltonganj in Matrimonial Case No. 33 of 2008. The matrimonial suit preferred by the petitioner- husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty in terms of section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed ex-parte. It appears from the perusal of the records that the opposite party-wife/ appellant herein had appeared on notice in the suit and also participated in a conciliatory exercise whereunder a joint compromise petition was also filed but not acted upon. Since she stopped appearing in the matter, notices were again issued upon her but she did not choose to appear or file any written statement. Consequently, she was debarred from filing written statement and the case was heard ex-parte.
3. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7.7.2007, as per the case of the petitioner-husband, at village Mahugawan under Bishrampur police station, District- Palamau, as per Hindu rites and customs. He alleged that soon after the marriage and her stay at the matrimonial home, she left for the house of her parents for few days. However, when she came back, her attitude became rude. She started behaving roughly against the petitioner and other family members for no reason. Despite efforts by the family members to ignore her rude behaviour, she did not change and started indulging in use of filthy and abusive language against him and his family members. She started demanding a sum of Rs. 200/- per day for her expenses and wanted to live at her father’s house along with the petitioner as Ghar Jamai as she was the only daughter. Her relatives started visiting petitioner's house frequently and used to instigate her to carry on her rude behaviour. They were threatened of false criminal cases including dowry case. Despite insistence also on the parents of the opposite party, her behaviour remain unchanged. She left for her parents house on 12.3.2008 along with all her ornaments, cash and usable articles, against the wishes of petitioner and his family members and efforts for amicable settlement by the petitioner, his parents and well-wishers went in vain. Her father, in fact, told the petitioner that he will get his daughter remarried. Despite that he went to bring her back on 29.3.2008 but was un-welcome in his in-laws house. He was also manhandled and beaten up by the members of the family of the wife. He again made attempts on 4.6.2008 along with his relatives to bring her back but the same thing was repeated. He was compelled to file a case against her in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, Daltonganj and also seek dissolution of marriage through the instant matrimonial suit on grounds of cruelty. The petitioner alleged physical and mental torture at the hands of the opposite party- wife and his family members with no hope of resumption of marriage. On these pleadings, the learned Family Court framed the following three issues for considerations:
“(i) Whether this case is maintainable?
(ii) Has the petitioner got valid cause of action for the suit?
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce in this case?
Four witnesses were examined during trial on behalf of the petitioner- husband, namely, Ganesh Singh, PW-1; Ram Janam Upadhya, PW-2; Sarju Prasad, PW-3, who is the father of the petitioner and P.W. 4, the petitioner himself. All these witnesses deposed in support of the case pleaded by the petitioner. They also stated that she started creating trouble in the matrimonial house soon after her marriage. She also conveyed her intention to stay at her parents house as she was the only daughter. The witness No. 1 and 2 also deposed that due to the interventio
