Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Sudhira Minj - Appellant
Versus
Amit Anuj Minj - Respondent
Appeal from the Original Decree No. 132 of 2016
Decided on : 04-07-2018
Christian Divorce Marriage Act, 1869 – Section 10 – Decree of divorce – Wife is the appellant aggrieved by the judgment passed in M.M. Case instituted by the petitioner husband/Respondent herein for a decree of divorce under section 10(x) of the Christian Divorce Marriage Act, 1869. – Held, Evidence of the petitioner and his witnesses though in support of the averments made in the plaint, are only oral on the point of allegation of cruelty. – Cruelty in marriage is something beyond normal wear and tear of daily life. – It must be of such a nature which creates reasonable apprehension in the minds of the aggrieved spouse that it would be harmful or injurious for him/her to live with his/her spouse. – There are no exceptional circumstances or any other corroborative evidence which point out to such acts of the Respondent which could have lead to reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it was harmful or injurious for him to live with her. Ext-2 heavily relied upon by the petitioner and treated by the Learned Family Court as corroborative evidence, in its content, completely fails to establish any such allegations of cruelty as conceived under section 10(x) of the Act. – Mere going to the police station by the Respondent with allegations of physical and mental torture being perpetrated by the husband, do not amount to such cruelty which would entitle the petitioner to seek divorce on that ground. – Learned Family Court has completely failed to take into consideration that sanctimonious relationship of marriage as a institution, should not have been dissolved on unsubstantiated allegation of such nature. – Learned Family Court has proceeded to arrive at such an opinion in haste without any adequate material evidence on record to establish the instances of cruelty in marriage whether physical or mental. – Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the findings of the Learned Family Court are suffering from errors both in law and on facts. – They suffer from lack of proper appreciation of evidence on record. – Appeal Allowed
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.
Wife is the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.03.2016 passed in M.M. Case No. 114/2015 instituted by the petitioner husband/Respondent herein for a decree of divorce under section 10(x) of the Christian Divorce Marriage Act, 1869.
2. Case of the petitioner/husband:
Parties entered into nuptial knot as per Christian customs and rites on 18.05.2012. The Respondent/wife was employed as a Nurse in Central University, Brambe, Ranchi. She had also got accommodation there. They lived together in the accommodation of University. Petitioner was working in the Electricity Department. Husband alleged repeated taunts and remarks against him by the wife, alleging that he was a worthless person employed in a private Institution. His in-laws also started living in the said quarter and ill-treating him. It became impossible for him to lead life with the Respondent. She used filthy language and also assaulted him and asked him to leave the quarter on 05.05.2014. He submitted an application before Sarpanch of village Aamgaon, Gumla on 07.11.2014 alleging cruel behaviour of his wife. He also made an application before Mandar P.S. on 15.05.2015 stating that she wanted to leave him forever. He also submitted an application before the police with an undertaking that he was ready to keep his wife with due respect. On 21.02.2015 he submitted an application to N.W.G.E.L Church at Aamgaon. Petitioner alleged that since 05.05.2014, he and the Respondent have not been living together and she has deprived him from sexual relationship which amounts to cruelty. He sought decree of divorce along with cost and any other relief (s).
3. Respondent did not turn up even after notice, as per the findings of the Learned Court and the case commenced ex-parte. Petitioner examined four witnesses. PW-1 is the petitioner himself, PW-2 is Mainjas Minz, uncle of the petitioner, PW-3 is Satish Minzident and PW-4 is the father of the petitioner. Learned Family Court proceeded to decide the suit on the basis of the pleadings of the petitioner/husband and the testimony of the four witnesses adduced on his behalf and the documentary evidence brought on record.
4. According to the petitioner/husband, since their marriage on 18.05.2012 as per Christian customs and rites, they were living together in the staff nurse quarter of Central University, Brambe. He was working in the Electricity Department on contract. Petitioner supported his case as made out in the plaint in relation to the allegation of taunt and ill-treatment on her part. He also intimated to the police that his articles were locked in the room of the Respondent. Officer-in-charge tried to patch up the matter and after conciliation, a compromise was arrived at in the police station. Carbon copy thereof was brought on record as Ext-1 with objection. He further stated that he wants to keep his wife with due respect, but she has not abided by the terms of the compromise, nor is ready to live with him. He raised this issue before the Sarpanch and Mukhia and Members of the society. The petition made before the Sarpanch is marked ‘X’ for identification. However, Sarpanch did not take any action. Seal of the police station was lacking in Ext.-1, Learned Court did not consider it proper to rely on. So far as document marked as ‘X’, Learned Court observed that neither Sarpanch nor Priest of N.W.G.E.L. Church have been examined. Therefore, evidence to that extent can’t be taken into account in the absence of corroboration. The husband further alleged that the wife has been staying away for the last two years and their relationship has almost come to an end. It was impossible to lead matrimonial life in future.
5. PW-2 has also supported the case of the petitioner and stated that it was impossible for the petitioner to lead happy matrimonial life with her.
6. PW-3 besides supporting the case of the petitioner on the point of marriage and employment and her behavior, has also stated that des
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
