Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs Sudha Devi on 13 August, 2018
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Ratnaker Bhengra
1
Appeal from Original Decree No. 58 of 2017
[Aggrieved by the dismissal of M.T.S. No. 176 of 2010 by
judgment dated 04.02.2017, passed by the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag]
Sanjay Kumar ... Appellant
Versus
Sudha Devi ... Respondent
--
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ...
For the Appellant : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate;
Mr. Nawal Kishor Pandey, Advocate;
Mr. Rajiv Kr. Shekhar, Advocate.
...
By Court:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Appellant is the husband aggrieved by the dismissal of M.T.S. No. 176 of 2010 by judgment dated 04.02.2017, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag, whereunder his prayer to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce on grounds of desertion and cruelty has been rejected.
3. Petitioner/ appellant herein pleaded before the Family Court, inter alia, as follows:
The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 29.06.2006 at Village- Sandh, PS- Barkagaon, District- Hazaribag as per Hindu rites and customs. They lived together as husband and wife at Village- Kachanpur, PS-Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribag. A daughter aged 3 years and 4 months was born out of the wedlock, named, Jigyasha and is residing with him. He tried to keep the respondent-wife with full honour and dignity but she remained unhappy in her marital house. When she fell ill, he got her treated at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag and thereafter on being referred at Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan, Ranchi. She was detected suffering from Brain T.B., which he got her treated and after recovery, she came back to matrimonial house in September, 2007 but did not agree to live with him. She asked him to stay as "Ghar Jamai" in her paternal house at Village-Sandh, which became the root 2 cause of differences. She did not allow him intercourse thereafter. She fled away to her parental house with all belongings. Despite several efforts, she refused to come back. Despite a panchayati, when she came back to the matrimonial house, she again refused to have intercourse and fled away after few days leaving her daughter. In June, 2008, she filed a criminal case under Sections 498A/ 120B/380/ 323/ 307/ 328 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 / 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act before the learned CJM, Hazaribag against the petitioner, his parents and brother being Complaint Case No. 811 of 2008, which was registered as Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 162 of 2008. Petitioner and his father suffered incarceration and were later on released on bail. Due to reconciliation, she came back to the matrimonial house but despite her being maintained with full dignity, she did not allow intercourse. Father of the petitioner partitioned his properties and gave his share in June, 2009 but thereafter she again fled to her parental house. After investigation, police submitted final form finding the allegation as false. She again filed false complaint case in Katkamsandi P.S. in September, 2009 with concocted allegation where both the parties were called for settlement. She came back to her matrimonial house but did not allow him intercourse. Her father and relatives came on 11.09.2009 and abused and assaulted the mother of the petitioner. They committed theft of jewelleries and cash of Rs.15,000/- which led to filing of a complaint before the learned CJM, Hazaribag by his mother. Since 11.09.2009, she has been residing in her parental house and refused to come back in spite of best efforts. She committed serious cruelties on him and has dashed all hopes of reunion. Therefore, he prayed for decree of divorce.
4. Respondent in her written statement denied the assertion and stated that the suit is not maintainable. It is based on false, imaginary and concocted grounds. Rs.2,50,000/- was given in cash apart from valuable articles at the time of marriage to the petitioner in the form of dowry, even then in-laws were still not satisfied. This was the reason for her torture and atrocities. Due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of colour TV, Godrej etc. she was subjected to physical torture which required treatment at Sadar Hospital. Her pregnancy had to be terminated because of assault on her stomach by the petitioner. He is not inclined to keep her because she was suffering from tuberculosis.3
She denied that she is not ready to live in association of the petitioner but the petitioner filed a written undertaking in the Court of Sessions Judge, Hazaribag and played fraud on the Court. He ousted her. He never visited her parents' place to bring her back. She conceived pregnancy for the third time but he made several efforts to terminate. She was tried to administer poison by use of force to terminate her pregnancy. Thereafter, her parents came and took her to Sadar Hospital. The information was sent to police station by the attending Doctor, which led to institution of Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 243 of 2009. However, it was compromised due to intervention of well-wishers, friends and relatives. Respondent had to lodge case on account of the torture inflicted despite an undertaking by the petitioner. She conceived pregnancy twice and it was, therefore, wrong to say that she denied physical relationship. Her parents have a son also apart from her and therefore, there was no reason to propose the petitioner to stay as a "Ghar Jamai" in the house of his in-laws. There has been no partition in the joint family of the petitioner, who still remain in jointness. She had to again lodge complaint on account of persistent torture before the Court of CJM, Hazarigag. False allegations of theft have been made against her relatives by the mother of the petitioner. She further stated that she is living at her parents' place since 11.09.2009 and the petitioner failed to make any effort to bring her back to matrimonial home. She further stated that petitioner had also negotiated another marriage with a girl. Petitioner has no cogent ground to seek divorce. All papers relating to medical treatment were available with the respondent. When her pregnancy was terminated for the third time, part of foetus remained in ovary which required deep treatment. She prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Following issues were framed for determination by the learned Family Court:
(i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has got valid cause of action for the suit?
(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act?
(iv) To what relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled to?
6. Seven witnesses named as under were examined by the petitioner:
4PW-1 : Pramod Kumar Mehta;
PW-2 : Lakhan Upadhyay;
PW-3 : Nirmal Sao;
PW-4 : Ram Lal Mahto;
PW-5: Ajay Kumar Ravi;
PW-6 : Sanjay Kumar;
PW-7: Phul Devi.
7. Respondent examined following six witnesses in support of her case:
RW-1 : Bhikhan Mahto;
RW-2: Geeta Devi;
RW-3: Chakradhar Prasad Dangi; RW-4: Suresh Mahto;
RW-5: Khirodhar Mahto;
RW-6: Sudha Devi.
8. Petitioner also adduced the following documentary evidence in support of his case:
Ext.-1 : Carbon copy of M Case No. 232/2014;
Ext.-2 : Carbon copy of petition dated 07.07.2015 in G.R.
No. 2148/2008;
Ext.-3 : Certified copy of petition dated 21.02.2014 in
Complaint case No. 1624/2010;
Ext.-4 : Carbon copy of rejoinder dated 21.02.2014 in
Complaint Case no. 1624/2010;
Ext.-5 & 5/1: Certified copy of deposition of Chakradhar Prasad Dangi and Bhikhan Mahto in Complaint Case No. 145/2011;
Ext.-6 : Certified copy of petition on oath dated 08.09.2009 of Chakradhar Prasad Dangi;
Ext.-7 : Certified copy of petition dated 06.03.2010 on oath of Sudha Devi.
9. Respondent brought on record the following documents in support of her own case:
Ext.-A : Certified copy of compromise between both the parties;
Ext.-B : Certified copy of medical prescription of Dr. R.C. Prasad;
Ext.-C : Certified copy of order dated 01.12.2011 passed by Shri Alok Kumar, J.M., Hazaribag in Complaint Case No.1624/2010;
Ext.-D : Certified copy of complaint petition No. 1624/2010; Ext.-E : Certified copy of W.P.(Cr.) No. 20 of 2011 dated 20.12.2011 of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi;
Ext.-E/1 : Certified copy of W.P.(Cr.) No. 20 of 2011 dated 28.11.2014 of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi;5
Ext.-F : Certified copy of order dated 18.02.2014 of the court of Satyakam Priyadarshi, J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribag in Complaint Case No. 1624/2010;
Ext.-G : Two Notice with Writ Application in W.P.(Cr.) No. 20/2011;
Ext.-H : Certified copy of order-sheet dated 03.06.2008 to 06.05.2013 in G.R. No. 2148/2008;
Ext.-I : Certified copy of F.I.R. of Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 162/2008;
Ext.-J, J/1 & J/2 : Certified copy of undertaking petition of Ram Lal Mahto and Sanjay Kumar;
Ext.-K : Certified copy of order-sheet dated 02.08.2008 in B.P. No. 1064/2008;
Ext.-L : Certified copy of order-sheet dated 04.08.2008 to 23.10.2008 in G.P. No. 1108/2008;
Ext.-M : Certified copy of bail bond cancellation petition; Ext.-N : Certified copy of petition dated 06.03.2010 by informant Sudha Devi;
Ext.-O : Certified copy of Affidavit of Sudha Devi dated 06.03.2010;
Ext.-P : Certified copy of rejoinder of Sudha Devi dated 30.04.2010;
Ext.-Q : Certified copy of order-sheet dated 13.09.2009 to 25.03.2010 in G.R. No. 2765/2009;
Ext.-R : Certified copy of F.I.R. of Katkamsandi (Pelawal) P.S. Case No. 243/2009;
Ext.-S : Certified copy of petition of Sudha Devi dated 06.10.2009;
Ext.-T : Certified copy of F.I.R. of Katkamsandi (Pelawal) P.S. Case No. 82/2010;
Ext.-U : Certified copy of Final Form of Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 82/2010;
Ext.-V : Certified copy or order-sheet dated 30.03.2010 to 26.08.2011 in G.R. No. 955/2010;
Mark-Y : Photocopy of Renewal of Licence to carry on the business of dealer in seeds of dated 16.04.2012 named Sanjay Kumar;
Mark-Y/1 : Photocopy of Renewal of Certificate of Registration named Sanjay Kumar;
Mark-Y/2 : Photocopy of Sell stock of Exhibit for Sale or Distribution of Insecticides named Sanjay Kumar.
10. The learned Family Court proceeded to take up Issue No.(iii) dealing both the grounds of desertion and cruelty in terms of Section 13(1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for determination.
11. Learned Family Court found few admitted position which emerged as per the rival pleadings of the parties such as that they were married on 29.06.2006; one girl child was born on 26.08.2007, who was living with her father; on 30.08.2007 she was admitted at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribag and then referred to Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan, Ranchi for 6 better treatment; after release from Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan, Ranchi, she went to her parental house; on 04.05.2008, a panchayati was held at Narsingh Asthan and thereafter, she returned to her matrimonial home; she filed three criminal cases i.e. Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 162 of 2008 (Ext.I), Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 243 of 2009 (Ext.R) and Complaint Case No. 1624 2010 (Ext.D) against the petitioner and his family members under Sections 498A/ 120B/ 328/ 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In two of these cases, petitioner and his parents suffered incarceration. It was also an admitted position that in course of grant of bail an undertaking was given by the petitioner and his father in connection with Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 162 of 2008 to keep the respondent with dignity, love and affection (Ext.J/1 and Ext. K,L,R have been adduced in support thereof). She also returned to her matrimonial home. A compromise had also taken place at Pelawal P.S. on 07.10.2009 and thereafter she came to her matrimonial house. Evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses and the witnesses for the respondent were discussed in detail before the learned Family court arrived at a finding against the petitioner and in favour of respondent-wife. The plea of desertion was not found established as the suit was presented on 04.11.2010 whereas, as per the case of the petitioner, respondent had been living separately since 11.09.2009 only. Therefore, the mandatory period of two years separation before presentation of the suit in terms of Section 13(1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was not complete. On the plea of cruelty, the learned Family Court brushed aside the submissions of the petitioner that the filing of the three criminal cases and custody of the petitioner, his father and mother would amount to acts of cruelty. Learned Family Court was of the opinion that lodging a complaint case was a legal redress available to the complainant-wife against cruelty inflicted during marriage; those cases had not attained finality before the competent court. Therefore, it could not be said that the complaints or allegations were false and vexatious. This could not be a ground at this stage to come to a finding of cruelty by the respondent against the petitioner. The plea of cruelty was also decided against the petitioner.
12. Evidence on record adduced by the parties are briefly being touched in hereinafter to test the findings of the learned Family Court in the light of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7PW-1, Pramod Kumar Mehta, in his deposition, supported the case of the petitioner that the respondent was kept well with dignity but she always used to flee away to her parental house. Several attempts to bring her back did not succeed as she was unwilling. She wanted him to live as "Ghar Jamai". After the birth of the daughter, she never became pregnant. She deserted her husband and daughter as well. False allegations were hurled against the petitioner and his family members. They had been living separately for three years.
PW-2 also spoke about the break down of conjugal relationship after birth of the daughter due to acts of the respondent. The respondent returned to the matrimonial house after a panchayati at Narsingh Asthan. He also stated that the petitioner and his father were sent to jail in connection with the case filed by the respondent.
PW-3 also deposed in similar manner. He denied that respondent was ever subjected to cruelty and torture by the petitioner and his parents.
PW-4 is the father of the petitioner. He deposed about the birth of his granddaughter on 26.08.2007 whereafter the respondent became ill and was referred to Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan, Ranchi for treatment. She was cured from Brain T.B. after 15-20 days but she refused to come back to her matrimonial house and left her daughter also. She returned after a panchayati on 04.05.2008 but just eight days thereafter she left for matrimonial home and filed a criminal case against them, in which, both he and his son were sent to jail. He further stated that altogether four cases had been lodged against him by the respondent. He denied that after confirmation of the bail he had driven out the respondent from the matrimonial house after assaulting her. He also denied that she was pregnant and they terminated her pregnancy.
PW-5 also supported the case of the petitioner.
PW-6, the petitioner himself, supported his case as made out in the plaint regarding marriage, the birth of the daughter and her illness which was treated at Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan, Ranchi. He also stated that she did not return after her treatment and only after panchayati at Narsingh Asthan she came back but spent only one month's time in her in-laws house. Thereafter, she fled away and filed a case under Dowry Act against them. He had no physical relationship since after the birth of his daughter. She had been living at her parental 8 house since 3 ½ years at the time of examination of the witnesses. He also narrated about the efforts of compromise at Pelawal P.S. where she came back to the matrimonial house and lived for six months. Thereafter, she filed a writ petition before the High Court in which he stated that he wants to keep her. Thereafter he filed this divorce case.
PW-7, a neighbour of the petitioner, also supported his case.
13. Respondent through her six witnesses sought to deny the allegations made against her.
RW-1 stated about the demand of dowry after marriage and subjection of the respondent to cruelty even after the birth of the daughter. He also stated about the assault with iron rod and that she was administered poison whereafter she was treated at Ranchi. The cost of which was borne by her father. He also stated about the panchayati whereafter she returned to the matrimonial house but behaviour of the petitioner and his family members remained unchanged. She was again assaulted which led the abortion. He also referred to the compromise entered between the parties whereafter she went back to the matrimonial house. She had lodged three cases against the petitioner and his family members on allegation of assault and demand of dowry.
Mother of the respondent, RW-2, supported her case. She also referred to the demand of dowry, assault and administration of poison as also branding with hot iron rod by the petitioner and his family members which required treatment at Ranchi. The cost for treatment was about Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.2,50,000/- borne by them. On 11.09.2009 her in-laws had planned to kill her daughter, then she came to her parental house and filed Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 243 of 2009 in Pelawal P.S. After compromise she returned to her matrimonial house and again became pregnant. She further stated that on 30.09.2010 she was again assaulted which led to abortion. On information on 05.09.2010 they brought her for treatment. She was treated under Dr. R.C. Prasad at Barkagaon. She further stated that two abortions took place on her daughter. She denied that she wanted to have her son-in-law as "Ghar Jamai".
RW-3, father of the respondent, supported the case of the respondent and also deposed in similar manner about the torture, treatment at Nagarmal Modi Sewa Sadan, Ranchi and termination of 9 pregnancy on more than one occasion. He also spoke about the treatment of the respondent by Dr. R.C. Prasad. He referred to the three cases, which were lodged for different cause of action- first one being for the period 30.09.2007 to 05.06.2008, second one for the occurrence dated 05.07.2009 and third one for the occurrence dated 01.09.2010. Further he stated that on 06.06.2008 his daughter was tortured in his presence by the in-laws.
RW-4 and 5 also supported her case. RW-4 however stated that torture was not inflicted in his presence.
Respondent, RW-6, in her deposition, narrated her entire case made out in the W.S. She also spoke about her treatment by Dr. R.C. Prasad (Ext.B) and thereafter she has been residing at her Maika (paternal house). In her cross examination, she stated that the first case was lodged on 06.06.2008 for the occurrence dated 05.06.2008 at 9:00 p.m., the second case related to occurrence dated 05.07.2009 at 9:00 p.m. and the third case is of 01.09.2010 at about 10:00 p.m. She admitted that in first case her husband and father-in-law and in third case her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law were sent to jail. She stated that her daughter has been snatched away in her childhood by the petitioner and her in-laws. She has not filed any case for return of her daughter.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that filing of repeated cases with false and unfounded allegations are acts of cruelty. Petitioner and his parents have undergone incarceration in two of the criminal cases lodged by her. The third case has been lodged for an occurrence of 1st September, 2010, though as per her statement made in the written statement at para -14 she had been living separately since 11.09.2009. Therefore the third case is apparently based on false allegations. On an overall review of the relationship of the parties, it would be evident that there is no chance of reunion and resumption of conjugal life. The marriage between the parties has therefore irretrievably broken down. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1675. Learned counsel further submits that there are subsequent events during the pendency of the instant appeal as the respondent has filed a petition for impleading the mother-in-law as an accused in Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 162 of 2008, since the police had exonerated her. Only petitioner 10 and his father were impleaded as accused. He submits that subsequent developments in such matrimonial disputes after filing of the suit can also be taken in account in the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, reported in AIR 2005 SC 534. Based on these submissions, learned counsel submits that there is no point in continuing with the marriage. Grounds of cruelty are adequately established for passing a decree of divorce. Learned family court has failed to consider the entire material evidence on record in proper prospective and committed a serious error of law in dismissing the suit.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has taken us through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, noted above. He has referred to the criminal cases filed by the respondent-wife Ext.-I, being a complaint Case No. 811 of 2008 which was registered as Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 162 of 2008, Ext.-R Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 243 of 2009 in which a compromise was arrived, Ext.-A on 07.10.2009, Ext.-D Complaint Case No. 1624 of 2010 lodged on 14.09.2010., all with allegations of cruelty in marriage on non fulfilment of demand of dowry and other offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Dowry Prohibition Act. He further refers to the Maintenance Case No. 232 of 2014 lodged by the respondent, where she has been allowed maintenance @ Rs. 5000/- per month. This has been challenged by the petitioner- husband in Criminal Revision No. 1201 of 2017 which is still pending. He also makes refers to the complaint case no. 149 of 2009 filed by the mother of the petitioner under sections 379 of the IPC ( Ext.-T) in which final form was submitted and accepted by the learned Judicial magistrate on 30.3.2010 , Ext.-U & V are in support thereof. He further submits that W.P.(Cr) No. 20 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for quashing of the criminal cases has been withdrawn vide Ext.-E/1. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja, reported in (2017)14 SCC 194, para-11 in support of the submission that mere filing of cases by wife on allegations of torture and demand of dowry could not be treated as false accusations till the criminal case are finally decided by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. These criminal cases are all pending trial. At this stage, therefore, an inference cannot be drawn that filing of these criminal cases amounted to cruelty as against the 11 petitioner. On the other hand, the statement of the witnesses of the respondents supported by documentary evidence such as Ext.-B, the certificate of Dr. R.C. Prasad dated 05.09.2010 would go to show that respondent had suffered incomplete abortion on 05.09.2010. He submits that the Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 243 of 2009 was in fact compromised on 07.10.2009 Ext.-A and respondent was taken back to her Matrimonial Home by the petitioner. However, in spite of promise to keep her well and in a dignified manner, the torture continued. The respondent conceived during this period and was subjected to torture which lead to her miscarriage. Certificate Ext.-B is only in support thereof. Therefore, the statement of the respondent at para 14 of the written statement that she had been living separately since 11.09.2009 cannot be read in isolation to draw an interference of false accusation on institution of complaint case no. 1624 of 2010. At the present stage when it is pending for trial, it is also premature to say so. Appellant had also failed to establish the plea of desertion because the suit was instituted on 04.11.2010 alleging that respondent has been living separately since 11.9.2009 which is not as per the requirement of section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The findings of the learned court, therefore are well considered. The evidence on record adduced by the respondent are copious to show cruelty by the petitioner against her. Petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. He has been facing trial in all these cases.
16. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties at length, taken note of the relevant material evidence on record relied upon by them and also perused the impugned judgment. We have also gone through the judgment cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the rival parties. The narration of facts and discussion of evidence made herein above, need no repetition. The admitted position as are culled out from the rival pleadings of the parties by the learned family court have also been briefly dealt with in the foregoing paragraphs. The plea of desertion apparently has not been made good by the appellant- husband as the suit has been presented within the period of two years from the alleged date of desertion by the respondent. The findings of the learned court, therefore, on that score do not suffer from any error of law or fact. So far as the plea of cruelty is concerned the main contention of the appellant is that the respondent has instituted three criminal cases 12 all with similar allegations of cruelty in marriage on non fulfilment of demand of dowry together with other offence of the Indian Penal Code in the year 2008, 2009 and 2010. In two of these criminal cases, petitioner and his parents have also undergone incarceration during trial. The false accusations made by the respondent and consequent incarceration of petitioner and his parents have soured the relationship between the parties to such an extent that it cannot be retrieved. From the submission of learned counsel for the respondents unrefuted by the counsel representing the Appellant it appears that despite final form submitted in Katkamsandi P.S. Case 243 of 2009, the trial of the petitioner and his family members are undergoing on the basis of a protest petition lodged by the respondent. It further appears that a compromise was entered into between the parties in connection with Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 243 of 2009 on 7.10.2009 (Ext.-A), whereafter the respondent was taken back to her matrimonial house. However, she was subject to torture and cruelty which also led to her miscarriage. Ext.-B, the certificate of Dr. R. C. Prasad dated 5.9.2010 shows that she has suffered incomplete abortion. Allegation made in Complaint Case No. 1624 of 2010 from para 8 to 15 narrate the incidences between her taking back to her matrimonial home on 07.10.2009 to the miscarriage which occurred on 05.09.2010. These documents exhibited by the respondent and statement in support thereof made by the witnesses for the respondent specifically R.W. 6, her father, R.W.3 and her mother R. W. 2 when read together do not persuade us to accept the plea of the appellant that accusations made in Complaint Case No. 1624 of 2010 were unfounded and that the statement made at para 14 of her written statement about the date of separation i.e. 11.09.2009 falsifies the accusation made in Complaint Case No. 1624 of 2010. These cases have not concluded either way for us also to take a conclusive view of the matter i.e. whether the accusations were false, unfounded and defamatory to amount mental cruelty upon the petitioner. On the contrary the evidence of the respondent and specifically in relation to her miscarriage as certified by the Dr. R.C. Prasad through Ext-B dated 05.09.2010 goes to show that respondent had been a victim of cruelty during marriage. Assertions of the petitioner that she did not allow him intercourse also appear to be unfounded in such circumstances. Reliance has rightly been placed 13 upon the observations of the Apex Court at para-11 in the case of Raj Talreja (Supra). On a conspectus of the entire material pleadings and evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the findings of the learned family court do not suffer from any such errors of law or fact and mis-appreciation of evidence which are susceptible to be interfered in appeal.
17. The appeal is, devoid of merit, it is accordingly dismissed. Decree accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated-13th August, 2018, Sharda/S.B -NAFR