Advocates:
['MUKESH KUMAR', 'NISITH KR SAHANI', '', 'GOURI DEBI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

First Appeal No. 82 of 2019

Vishal @ Vishal Mishra, son of Amardeo Mishra, resident of village Sector

1/B, Qrs. No. 510, PO &PS BS City, Bokaro (Jharkhand)

......Appellant

Versus

Pallawi Kumari, wife of Vishal @ Vishal Mishra, daughter of Ramakant

Dubey, resident of village Rajepur, Dubey Tola, PO Loria, PS Govindganj,

District East Champaran, Bihar

..... Respondent

---------------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Appellant

: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent

: Ms. Gouri Debi, Advocate

Ms. Dimpy Halder, Advocate

---------------

O R D E R

06^th December 2022

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The appellant filed Title (Mat.) Suit No. 108 of 2015 which

was renumbered as Original Suit No. 108 of 2015 (in short, divorce case),

seeking a decree of divorce by dissolution of his marriage with the

respondent which was solemnized on 29^th April 2013 at village Rajopur of

Govindganj PS, within East Champaran district in the State of Bihar.

2.

The divorce case has been dismissed by the judgment dated 25^th

January 2019 against which the appellant has preferred the present First

Appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

3.

The Family Court has held that the appellant inflicted cruelty

upon his wife on non-fulfillment of the demand for a Scorpio car and

ousted her from her matrimonial home on 20^th July 2013. The Family Court

has also taken note of the criminal case filed by brother of the appellant vide

CP Case No. 974 of 2014 which has ended in acquittal of the respondent and

her family members.

4.

After having considered the materials produced by the parties in

the divorce case, the Family Court has held as under:

“9. Hence, from the above facts and circumstances of the case,

2 First Appeal No. 82 of 2019

the petitioner has not been able to prove the allegations of cruelty

as levelled against his wife/respondent. On the contrary, prima

facie the respondent has proved that due to non-fulfillment of

their said demand of car, she was subjected to cruelty and torture

by the petitioner and his family members. Hence, this issue no. iii

is decided in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner.

10. Now, I would like to deal with the issue nos. i,ii &iv.

Since, the main issue i.e. issue no. iii has been decided in

favour of the wife/respondent and against the petitioner/husband,

hence this suit is not maintainable, there is no valid cause of

action for the present suit and the petitioner is not entitled to get

the relief as prayed for. Accordingly, issue nos. i, ii & iv are also

decided in favour of the wife/respondent and against the

petitioner/husband.”

5.

The aforesaid findings have been challenged by the appellant

on the ground that the Family Court has failed to consider the effect of the

respondent staying away from his company just after two and half month of

the marriage. It is submitted that the appellant has taken a specific plea that

filing of criminal case against him and making defamatory allegations

against his family members due to which he had to undergo jail custody

have caused such mental cruelty that he has a reasonable apprehension that

it would be dangerous for him to live with his wife.

6.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues

were framed by the Family Court:

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for

the suit?

(iii) Whether the respondent (wife) committed subjected

to cruelty against the petitioner (husband) after marriage

and whether the petitioner (husband) is entitled to get a

Decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty

u/s 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 19