Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Rupa Pal vs Sanjay Pal on 14 August, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIR 2019 JHARKHAND 8, AIRONLINE 2018 JHA 635, 2018 (4) AJR 307, (2019) 3 PAT LJR 264, (2018) 4 JCR 675 (JHA), (2019) 2 DMC 156, (2019) 2 HINDULR 264
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Ratnaker Bhengra, Aparesh Kumar Singh
1
Appeal from Original Decree No. 80 of 2017(DB)
(Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce dated 18.01.2017
and 27.01.2017 respectively passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No.
301 of 2010)
Smt. Rupa Pal ....Appellant
--Versus--
Sanjay Pal .... Respondent
--
PRESENT : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellant : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate;
Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate;
Mr. Shatakshi, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate;
Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate;
Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate;
Mr. Amit Kr. Choubey, Advocate.
By Court:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Wife is the appellant aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce dated 18.01.2017 and 27.01.2017 respectively granted on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 301 of 2010 instituted by the petitioner/ respondent-husband.
3. Brief facts of the parties as pleaded before the learned Family Court are being referred to hereinafter to appreciate the issue in controversy:
Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15.04.2007 at Kadma, Jamshedpur as per Hindu rites and rituals. They spent conjugal life at village Kulludih, Moubhandar, Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum in the house of the petitioner. Husband alleged cruelty after six months of marriage. She used to taunt him on his personality and his family members. She used to look down upon him even on the factum of his residence as she came from a better locality at Kadma in Jamshedpur. In August, 2008, a son 'Abhisek Pal' was born. However, according to the petitioner, she continued with her ill behaviour and finally left him on 22.09.2009. Thereafter, she has been living at Kadma with her parents and has refused to join his company. She has instituted a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code i.e. Ghatshila P.S. Case No. 97 of 2009, which is still pending. He stated that all his efforts to bring her back failed as she refused to settle the matter. She also filed a maintenance case i.e. 2 Miscellaneous Case No. 72 of 2010.
As it appears from the impugned judgment also, respondent did not appear during the trial despite publication of notice. It proceeded ex-parte for about five years when she appeared finally on 23.04.2015. It was taken note of by the learned Family Court that the Maintenance Case No. 72 of 2010 filed by her prior in time was before the same Court and being regularly prosecuted by her. However, on her appearance the ex-parte order was recalled and she was allowed to file written statement. Her fresh evidence was also taken. The issues were then framed on 03.12.2016. Respondent, in her written statement, denied allegations of cruelty. She admitted the marriage and birth of the child. She stated that during marriage Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, one Hero Honda Glamour Motorcycle, DVD, Washing Machine, Television, Dressing Table etc. were given as dowry. She is the youngest daughter of her parents, who incurred lot of expenditure on that account. She faced cruelty at the hands of the petitioner for not bringing further gifts, utensils etc. She alleged that petitioner is a moneyed man and she has always resided in rented accommodation. The expenses of the birth of her son at TMH Hospital were also incurred by her parents. When the cruelty became intolerable, she lodged the FIR under Sections 498A/ 406 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She admitted living separately since 22.09.2009. She further stated that the petitioner never showed desire to bring her back to the matrimonial home nor instituted any suit for restitution of conjugal rights. She accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The following five issues were framed by the learned Family Court on the basis of rival pleadings of the parties:
I. Is the suit as framed maintainable?
II. Whether the applicant has valid cause of action? III. Whether the respondent has committed acts of cruelty on the applicant sufficient for the purpose of divorce? IV. Whether the applicant is entitled to a decree of divorce? V. To what other relief or reliefs the applicant is entitled to?
5. Petitioner and respondent both examined two witnesses each, one of them being the parties themselves.
6. PW-1, petitioner, supported his case as made out in the plaint regarding solemnization of marriage on 15.04.2007; birth of son in August, 2008; repeated taunts by her upon the petitioner and his widow-mother and her final desertion 3 on 22.09.2009 after filing a false case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He denied any demand of dowry or taking of dowry during marriage. He also stated having incurred the entire expenses of the birth of the son in August, 2008. Reference was also made to the maintenance case. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the son is residing with the respondent and he has not instituted any case for restitution of conjugal rights. He was residing with his widow-mother. He denied the allegations of meting out cruelty to his wife but admitted Xerox copy of the agreement which bore his signature. He denied that he refused to keep his wife when she came to live with him at Ghatshila. He had not met his child since last six years and not given anything for his maintenance. He stated that he is presently unemployed.
PW-2, Amit Khaitan, stated that he is having a business of wholesale and was residing close to the house of the petitioner, which is separated by a railway track. He supported the allegations of cruelty and that respondent left matrimonial home on 22.09.2009, never to resume conjugal life thereafter. In his cross-examination, he attributed personal knowledge of some facts and some derived from the petitioner. According to him, petitioner was working under NAREGA Scheme and earlier he had a business of fish which was closed on being taken into custody.
7. Respondent examined herself as RW-1 and supported her case made out in the written statement. She further asserted giving of dowry including gold jewellery during marriage. She lodged FIR at Ghatshila P.S. on allegations of cruelty for non-fulfillment of dowry against the petitioner, in which, charge sheet had been submitted and petitioner was taken into judicial custody as well. She denied that petitioner had ever come to take her back to the conjugal home. Divorce case was filed after filing of the maintenance case by her. In her cross- examination, she admitted to be a Graduate but was not very conversant in English. She also said that her affidavit was in Hindi which is false as the affidavit is in English. Her mother-in-law was living alone in the house with her husband. Her sister-in-law used to visit the matrimonial home frequently. She spoke about the good relationship between the spouses till the son was born. At para-25 she stated about the registration of Ghatshila case when she had come to the police station along with her husband and son. At para-26, she further stated that FIR was lodged under pressure of the Officer-in-charge of Ghatshila.
4At para-27, she further stated that she had gone to police station where her brother and father were already present. However, she had not seen that her husband was taken into lock up on the same day and time. She once stated that she accompanied her parents with her son to her parental home but later on rectified by stating that she first went to her in-laws house and there from to her parental house. She denied knowledge about her husband being taken into judicial custody or not and whether any case instituted by her is pending at Ghatshila or not. She was unaware of filing of the application for transfer of the case or any order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Since the date of lodging of the case, she has been living with her parents and never resided with her husband. She stated that though on couple of times she went to her matrimonial home but was refused entry. She admitted absence of any conjugal relationship with her husband. At the time of death of her mother-in-law, her husband had informed her and called her. However, she says though simultaneously he threatened that her leg would be broken if she came. She denied meting out cruelty to her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. She admitted that her mother-in- law was a widow aged seventy years and above. She denied filing any compliant against her brother or father at Moubhandar P.S. She also denied having compelled her husband to leave the matrimonial home and sell the property at Ghatshila and reside with her at Jamshedpur.
Second witness, Bablu Gorai, brother of the respondent, supported her case in examination-in-chief. He also referred to the marriage, the birth of the son out of the wedlock between the parties and giving of dowry as well as cruelty on his sister, which led to institution of Ghatshila P.S. Case No. 97 of 2009. He further stated that his sister is living since 22.09.2009 with him along with her son. He denied the allegations of cruelty against his sister and also stated about the maintenance case by her. He stated that on 22.09.2009 his sister was in the police station prior to his and his father's arrival to the police station. His sister had accompanied him to the parental home after taking cloth from her matrimonial home. He denied any panchayati at Jamshedpur but stated that they themselves had done panchayati. He also denied any panchayati at Kadma P.S. and stated that his sister had not filed any suit for restitution of conjugal rights. He could not go to Ghatshila Court for giving evidence as he was apprehending threat to his life.
8. The following documents were exhibited by the petitioner:
5Ext.1, certified copy of the FIR of G.R. Case No. 427 of 2009; Ext.2, copy of the notice to show-cause of Misc. Case No. 72/10; Ext.3, copy of notice of Cr. Misc. Petition No. 20/10; Ext.4, certified copy of order sheet of Misc. Petition No. 20/10; Ext.5, certified copy of the order sheet of G.R. Case No. 427/09; Ext.6, certified copy of charge sheet of G.R. Case No. 427/09.
Ext.-A is a document adduced by the respondent, which has the signature of the petitioner on a Xerox copy of an agreement which also bore the signature of the respondent/appellant herein.
9. Learned Family Court, after appraisal of the evidence on record and on the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, proceeded to answer Issue No. III; i.e. the dominant issue of cruelty, against the respondent and in favour of petitioner. The following reasons and factors propelled it to arrive at such an opinion. The learned Family Court took into note the statement of the petitioner that the respondent used to frequently leave her matrimonial home, taunt her husband and her mother-in-law and also used filthy language against them. After the birth of the child, she deserted him on 22.09.2009 and thereafter there has been no resumption of conjugal life. On these assertions by the petitioner, evidence of the respondent, particularly, at paragraph-27 to 30 were examined where she stated that she was not aware of the fact that her husband had gone to jail on the complaint filed by her. She was unaware whether her husband had been put behind the bar on the same day when she had accompanied her husband to the police station along with her child. She also did not know whether she had filed any criminal complaint before Ghatshila Police Station or any transfer petition before Principal District Judge or any application before the Hon'ble High Court. This showed ignorance of an admitted fact that her husband was put behind bar on her complaint registered at Ghatshila Police Station. This spoke of her apathy towards her husband and that she had no care or concern for him. The evidence of the respondent also showed that on the date she had gone to the P.S., her son and her husband had gone along with her and on the same day, he was apprehended and put in the lock up and subsequently forwarded to judicial custody. Father and brother were present from before in the police station. She admitted that her mother-in-law was all alone in the house but being fully aware that her husband is put in the lock up and forwarded to judicial custody, she left her mother-in-law, who was aged about 72 to 75 years old alone in the matrimonial home and took her son to her parental home. This also 6 spoke volumes of her conduct and behaviour towards the petitioner and his mother who had unfortunately passed away during the pendency of the suit. Learned Family Court also took into note that neither the petitioner nor the respondent had filed any suit for restitution of conjugal rights. On the other hand, she had filed a maintenance case prior to the filing of matrimonial suit and both were running in the same court. Despite paper publication of notice done for securing her attendance she did not appear in the case for about five years while the maintenance case was prosecuted by her. Her conduct apparently showed her apathy and ill behaviour towards the petitioner which would create a sense of mental cruelty. Regarding the FIR (Ext.1) instituted by her, on her written report, she had stated in her evidence that Officer-in-charge of Ghatshila P.S. forcibly got the complaint signed by her. However, she admitted having prosecuted the present case. Though she has stated about physical, mental and financial cruelty but details of such cruelty were not given nor any date of such cruelty was indicated. The case was registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which charge sheet has been submitted after investigation finding prima facie case against the petitioner. The learned Family Court found that petition for transfer of the criminal case being Miscellaneous Case No. 20 of 2010 was dismissed by the Court of Sessions by order dated 11.07.2011. Ext.-A, an agreement adduced by her containing signature of both the parties showed that petitioner was ready to keep her. However, the agreement did not bear any date. The learned Family Court on these materials was persuaded to come to an inference that the petitioner had been deprived of love and affection and care and custody of his son since 22.09.2009 when respondent deserted him after institution of the FIR. This also amounted to cruelty. As per the evidence of the respondent herself, after the birth of the child in August, 2008, they admittedly remained together till 22.09.2009 but what led to the institution of the criminal case was not clear. Based on these findings, issue of cruelty was decided in favour of the petitioner. Issue No.IV was also decided in favour of the petitioner based on these findings. Suit was accordingly decreed.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the sequence of facts and events, after the marriage between the spouses on 15.04.2007 and birth of the son in August, 2008, it is evident that spouses lived together till 22.09.2009. The suit was instituted on 29.07.2010. Within this short period, petitioner has 7 tried to make out a case of cruelty though it is not substantiated by any cogent material evidence on record. Learned Family Court has drawn extreme inference on the basis of the scanty material evidence on record to arrive at a finding of cruelty against the respondent/ wife. Allegations of taunt or ill behaviour or insistence to sell off the matrimonial house in order to shift at Kadma in Jamshedpur are just oral statements which in themselves do not stand substantiated or are sufficient to render a finding of cruelty. If the wife was subjected to cruelty, institution of the criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act could not be construed as an act of cruelty. Police had found prima facie case made out on investigation and the petitioner is facing trial before the learned Court. As such, inference of cruelty could be drawn as against the petitioner rather than the respondent-wife. The period of conjugal life was very short, during which period, the petitioner has not been able to substantiate any significant act or conduct of the wife amounting to cruelty whether physical or mental. Therefore, the findings are misconceived. The impugned judgment should be set aside. The appeal deserves to be allowed.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband herein has supported the findings rendered in the impugned judgment. He submits that the learned Family Court has undertaken an overall assessment of the conduct of the wife over a period of time. Significant incidences which have been taken note by the learned Family Court, such as, institution of an FIR suddenly on 22.09.2009 at Ghatshila by the wife when the petitioner-husband had accompanied her to the police station; his being sent to lock up and judicial custody in her presence; her return to matrimonial home only to collect her cloths and leave for her paternal house; leaving behind mother-in-law aged more than 72 years are enough to show the state of mind of the appellant-wife.
12. The petitioner never gave any cause for her to institute a false criminal case as after the birth of their son in August 2008 spouses remained at matrimonial home since 22.9.2009 when both of them went to the police station along with the son. At the same time, statement of the wife in her examination itself shows that she has alleged institution of the FIR due to pressure of the Officer-in-Charge of the Ghatshila Police Station. If that is so, she had no reason to prosecute the said criminal case of which she sought transfer through Miscellaneous Case No. 20 of 2010. The transfer petition was dismissed by the 8 learned Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur. Ext.-A exhibited by her also shows that petitioner was ready to keep her in a matrimonial home. If for no reason the respondent-wife had denied her company to the husband and also the love, affection and custody of the minor son born out of the wedlock, the element of cruelty could definitely be inferred therefrom. Therefore the findings of the learned court do no suffer from such error which requires interference in appeal. Parties have been living separately since 2009 for almost nine years by now and there is no chance of their reunion. It would be rather unwise to expect that the parties could live together in a happy conjugal home. The overall assessment of the conjugal life of the parties would also lead to an impression of irretrievable break down of marriage in such circumstances. The mother of the petitioner had also died during the pendency of the suit which fact was informed to the respondent by the petitioner. However, she did not take care to attend the last rites.
13. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties at length, gone through the impugned judgment and also taken into account the relevant material evidence relied upon by the parties and its discussion made by the learned family court. The narration of case of either of the parties and evidence led by them on the issue of cruelty as referred in some detail in the foregoing paragraph does lead to some inevitable inferences. The marriage was about two years old in between a son had been born in August, 2008. However, on 22.9.2009 the husband accompanied the wife perhaps in complete ignorance to the police station. The appellant instituted a case under section 498A of the IPC read with section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against him in his presence. The wife-appellant herein has for inexplicable reasons attributed the institution of the criminal case on the pressure of the Officer-in- Charge of the Ghatshila Police Station. But it is true at the same time that the case was investigated and the husband was charge sheeted for the offences complained of and is facing trial. On the same day, the father and brother of the wife were present in the police station from before. There may be a design behind all this. The husband was taken in lock up and forwarded to judicial custody on institution of the FIR on the same date but she denies any knowledge about it. Appellant thereafter returned to her matrimonial house only to collect the clothing with her minor son about one year old and left her lone mother-in-law aged more than 70 years for her paternal house. The husband 9 was subjected to incarceration on account of such allegations. The fate of the criminal case is yet unknown as it is pending for trial. The aforesaid conduct of the appellant can be considered side by side with another significant fact showing the conduct of the appellant wife. A maintenance case was instituted prior to filing of the divorce suit and was being prosecuted before the same court for more than five years. However, even after paper publication to secure her attendance, she refrained from contesting the matrimonial suit for about five years till apparently it was at the final stage. Still, on her appearance in suit on 23.4.2015 the learned family court gave her opportunity not only to file written statement but also adduce evidence by recalling ex-parte order. She then contested the suit and also adduced evidence which has been referred to herein above. This conduct of the appellant also showed strange apathy towards her husband. She neither contested the suit for five years nor agreed to settle the matter. This was in fact being done while she was prosecuting the maintenance case all along before the same court for five years. More than one inference can be drawn from such conduct; one of them could definitely be a sense of sustained neglect, apathy or indifference towards the matrimonial relationship. The mother of the husband passed away during pendency of the suit and as it appears he was the only other member living in the matrimonial house. The learned family court therefore seems to have taken an overall assessment of the matrimonial life of the spouses and been persuaded to come to a finding in favour of the petitioner on the issue of cruelty. Mental cruelty has been described through a number of illustrations in the case of Samar Ghosh Vs. Jaya Gosh reported in (2007)4 SCC 511 para 99 to 101 of the report is quoted hereunder:
"99. Human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system.
100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time or 10 vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar facts and circumstances while taking aforementioned factors in consideration".
101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behavior of some spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be aground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a 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 11 that because of the acts and behavior of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of the wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xix) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage;
on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty".
The matrimonial life of the parties has to be reviewed as a whole to come to any finding of cruelty. However, sustained neglect, apathy, indifference to the matrimonial relationship over a period of time could also lead to an inference of mental cruelty upon the suffering spouse, if because of the acts /omissions of one of the spouses the other spouse is compelled to face agony. As per the opinion rendered in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra), if one of the spouses refuses to severe the tie in such circumstances, it may lead to mental cruelty. In the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226, the Apex Court discussed the grounds of mental cruelty at para 10-16 of the report while also relying on the precedents on the point i.e. the case of Samar Ghosh ( Supra) and another cases. A question also arose whether the marriage had irretrievably broken down? It was observed that though irretrievable break down of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but where marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness created by the acts of the husband or the wife or of both, the courts have always taken irretrievable break down of marriage as a very weighty circumstance amongst other necessitating severance of marital tie. A marriage which is dead for all purposes cannot be revived by the courts verdict, if the parties are not willing. This is because marriage involves human sentiments and emotions and if they are dried up there is hardly any chance of their springing 12 back to life on account of artificial reunion created by courts decree. The Apex Court also touched upon an issue in the interest of the victims of the matrimonial dispute in the case of K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226 (Supra), it was observed that by recording a finding against the respondent-wife that she has caused mental cruelty to the appellant- husband the court may not be understood, however to have said that the fault lies only with the respondent-wife. In matrimonial disputes there is hardly any case where one spouse is at fault. But, then before the dispute assumes alarming proportions, someone must make efforts to make parties see reason. If the bitterness escalated and the marriage becomes beyond repair, then it is in the larger interest of the parties to severe the relationship. In the factual matrix of the case, discussed herein above, we also observe that the relationship between the parties have reached a stage which is beyond repair. It would therefore be an exercise in futility to revive the conjugal relationship between the parties at this stage. Taken together with the findings recorded by the learned family court as discussed above, we therefore do not find any reason to set aside the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Decree accordingly.
14. At the end learned counsel for the appellant has made a prayer for grant of permanent alimony. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- husband submits that the wife is getting maintenance @ Rs. 6000/- per month. The financial condition of the respondent is also not sound so as to grant permanent alimony. We are of the opinion that in absence of sufficient material evidence on record on this plea, it would be proper that the appellant approaches the concerned family court under section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of permanent alimony which could be decided on the basis of the material pleadings and evidence on record adduced by the parties.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated-14th August, 2018.
Sharda/S.B.- NAFR