Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1070
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Pankaj Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Monika Sharma - Respondent
First Appeal No. 179 of 2017
Decided On : 25-08-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mithilesh Singh.
Headnote:
Hindu Marriage Act – Section 13 – Suit for divorce – Grounds of cruelty and desertion – Whether the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that, the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with her – Whether the suit, as framed and filed, is maintainable in its present form or not – Whether the applicant has valid cause of action for filing the suit – Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty after solemnization of the marriage – Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the suit or not – Whether the applicant is entitled to get a decree of divorce against the respondent or not – Held, Counsel for the appellant husband has sought to press the appeal based on the material evidence and pleadings on record on each of the material issue i.e., mental illness/unsoundness of mind; cruelty and desertion. – The evidences on record clearly lacks strength to record a finding in favour of the petitioner. – Mental illness of such nature and extent, which could create an apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent, were clearly missing. – The allegation of mental illness is a stigma attached to any person. – If such charge has remained unsubstantiated, the sacred thread of marriage cannot be dissolved on such allegation. – Court find that petitioner tried to establish the charge of mental illness with no expert evidence in support thereof, more so when the respondent had stayed only for 3/4 days in the matrimonial house just after the marriage. – In such a short span of time, not even a medical expert would render a final opinion that persons suffers from such incurable mental illness. – The only documentary evidence i.e., agreement relied upon by the petitioner cannot be accepted as an admission of mental illness of the respondent, more so when her father had specifically stated that he was forcibly made to sign on the said paper. – P.W.4 in her statement had stated that she had not signed on the agreement Ex.1. Statements of P.W.2 and P.W.4 cannot be taken on their face value in view of the reasons discussed by the learned Family Court. – Counsel for the respondent has supported the findings rendered by the impugned judgment in the light of the material evidence and pleadings on record. – He submits that respondent is willing to go back to her matrimonial home. – She was compelled to move out of the matrimonial home 4 days after marriage in a car provided by the petitioner himself. – As such the appeal deserves to be dismissed. – Appeal Dismissed
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Appellant husband instituted a suit for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion in terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act against the Respondent wife. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on the basis of rival pleadings of the parties framed additional issue i.e.,
“Whether the respondent has been incurably of unsound mind or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that, the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with her?”
Other 5 issues framed for adjudication inter alia were as under:-
1. Whether the suit, as framed and filed, is maintainable in its present form or not?
2. Whether the applicant has valid cause of action for filing the suit?
3. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty after solemnization of the marriage?
4. Whether the respondent deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the suit or not?
5. Whether the applicant is entitled to get a decree of divorce against the respondent or not?
3. Parties consented to addition of the additional issue and did not express desire to adduce any additional evidence in that regard as they had led evidence on that issue during the course of trial. Learned Family Court decided all the important issues of cruelty, desertion and the additional issue no.6 against the petitioner husband/appellant herein in favour of the Respondent wife by the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2017, decree dated 15.06.2017 in Matrimonial Suit No. 09 of 2012 with which the appellant is aggrieved.
4. Petitioner husband through its pleadings sought to make out a case that immediately after their marriage on 01.07.2009 at Sonari, Jamshedpur parties stayed together for a scanty period of 4 days during which period, petitioner noticed Neuro Pshychopathic Congenital disease of nervous disability in the Respondent which was suppressed at the time of marriage. On discovery of such abnormality due to conduct of the respondent, she was taken to eminent Doctor, Neuro Psychiatrist, Neuro Scientist and Epileptologist Dr. B.K.P. Sinha. Due to these problems she left the matrimonial home on 05.07.2009, without any rhyme or reason. Petitioner tried to restore happy conjugal life but failed in his effort, which compelled him to seek dissolution of the marriage.
5. Respondent in her written statement alleged falsehood and denied allegation made in the plaint as being mischievous to legalize the fraud and other illegal acts of the petitioner and his men, played upon her. She admitted that marriage was short lived for 4 days only. She did not suffer from any such disease of Neuro Pshychopathic congenital type or nervous disability either before or after the marriage. Petitioner’s father and brother-in-law had visited the house of relative of the respondent, at Sonari and they had a good conversation with the respondent and on being satisfied, agreed for the marriage. The family members of the petitioner also met her before the marriage was finalized. Petitioner and his friends had also met the respondent at Jublee Park and spent 4 hours with her. Only thereafter on being satisfied he agreed for marriage. She had no mental or physical disease and it was only due to mental torture by the petitioner and his family members, she was forced to leave the matrimonial house on 04.07.2009 by a vehicle arranged by the petitioner. She did not leave the matrimonial home on her own sweet will. Petitioner was not happy with her, for the reason best known to him. He never tried to take her back. On the other hand her father approached him and his guardian with a request to restore their conjugal life. Petitioner and his relatives were powerful men and the petitioner got an agreement signed by her father by threatening him. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the suit
