Jharkhand High Court
(Against The Judgment And Decree Dated ... vs Rupesh Kumar on 2 May, 2018
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Ratnaker Bhengra
1
Appeal from original Decree No. 25 of 2011
---
(Against the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2011/15.03.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 145 of 2008)
--
Smt. Kumari Bimla .....Appellant
Versus
Rupesh Kumar ......Respondent
---
For the Appellant: Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. M.M. Kishore, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Piyush Chitresh, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate
---
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
---
By Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellant is the wife aggrieved by dissolution of marriage vide impugned judgment dated 5.3.2011 and decree dated 15.3.2011 rendered in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 145 of 2008 by the learned court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi. Husband-respondent herein sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The instant matrimonial suit came to be transferred from Family Court, Bangalore pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court on the Transfer Application filed by the appellant-wife.
Case of the petitioner-husband: Petitioner entered into the nuptial knot on 22.11.2000 with the resp/appellant herein, in an arranged marriage in the concept of Golat (mutual exchange) where the sister of the petitioner also got married with the brother of the appellant-wife on 20.11.2000. Petitioner was working on temporary basis at Satyam Computer in Bangalore having completed his engineering from Bangalore. The appellant is the only daughter with three brothers. Her father is a retired police personnel. The petitioner found the behaviour of his wife strange only after few months of the marriage when they were together at Bangalore. She had come to New Delhi without any permission. Only after much persuasion, she returned to Bangalore to stay with him. She started indulging in making unjust demands of money and appeared to be extravagant in spending. She used to be rude and used to abuse the petitioner with unfounded scandalous allegations. She threatened to book him under Dowry Prohibition Act. She also threatened to commit suicide 2 and put the blame on the petitioner and his family members. Petitioner was in a quandary on such wanton behaviour of the wife. The torture continued. Petitioner believed that her father used to instigate her to abuse and threaten him. At times he was very helpless as the respondent-wife used to vanish and refuse to come back. She used to get out of the house and yell at the petitioner causing nuisance and embarrassment. Petitioner belonging from a cultured family whose father was a retired Professor and mother was a Teacher, found difficult to reconcile with such irresponsible behavior of his wife. The way, she left the house on 24.4.2002 with bag and baggage and did not return, gave an impression that she wanted to put the matrimonial relationship permanently to an end. She also used to call him bad names and a person of loose character. As such, he filed a petition for divorce before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C. No. 1652 of 2002. But on intervention of elders and well-wishers and in view of the fact that the petitioner's sister had been given in marriage to the respondent's brother, withdrew the suit in February, 2004. However, the respondent- wife kept on harassing the petitioner. It appears that she was collecting evidence against him. She, in the meantime, became pregnant but much against her will and wanted to abort the pregnancy. On his persuasion that the birth of a child would normalize the relationship, she finally gave birth to their only son Master Arnev Verma, at Bangalore. She underwent delivery at Manipal Hospital and had many complications for which the petitioner had to spend about Rs. 1,00,000/-. Even after birth of the child, she and her family members were not happy and kept on threatening the petitioner that he has to come back and settle at Ranchi. Even, at the time of naming ceremony of the child at Bangalore on 01. 01. 2005, no one from respondent-wife side came to the function though friends and relatives of both the parties were invited and a considerable expenditure of Rs. 50,000/- was made by him. He was often threatened in the night by one Bindu Bhushan (Munna) and the respondent's father. Whenever the petitioner called her she would not be at home and her replies were abusive. On 29.04.2005 one Sashibhushan (one of the brother-in-law) along with two persons came and assaulted him and his family members and threatened to eliminate his family. She went along with the child with Sashibhushan. She got a notice issued from Mahila Helpline, Ranchi making false accusations of harassment. She also filed a Maintenance Case No. 69 of 2005 before the Principal Judge, Family Court Ranchi with an intention to harass him. Father of the respondent also filed 3 a criminal case no. 820 of 2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi for defamation under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner had to obtain bail from Ranchi Court. These acts of mental cruelty started bearing upon his mental and physical health. He could not concentrate on his job as a result. Finding no alternative, he sought dissolution of marriage through the instant petition. According to him, in the total period of 5 years and 5 months, respondent had lived only for 1 year and10 months and that too was not peaceful.
3. Appellant's case as pleaded in her written statement:
Appellant accepted the marriage with the petitioner through the arrangement of mutual exchange (Golat). She alleged giving of several articles like Washing Machine, T.V., Fridge etc., apart from Rs. 1.5. Lakh as dowry to the parents of the petitioner during marriage. She alleged that she was forcibly sent to Delhi against her wishes in February, 2001. She went back to Bangalore in August, 2001. The petitioner again took her to Delhi on 27.4.2002 and she was left alone at New Delhi Railway Station. She alleged torture and abuse for being unable to bring sufficient dowry at the hands of the petitioner and his family members. She was also called an unattractive woman with no physical appeal. She has referred to illicit relationship of her husband with a Keralian woman, namely, Seena. She came to know that the husband had pre-marital relation and also post marital relationship with her. His photographs and letters also showed his promiscuous nature. He used to brutalize her. In a hostile and violent atmosphere she gave birth to a child in December, 2004. He had left her to fend herself and her child. He wanted to continue his relationship with Seena. She denied the instigation on the part of her father in any such alleged behavior. In April, 2005, she was assaulted by her husband and others. On telephonic information, her brother Sashibhushan came to Bangalore and asked him not to ill-treat her, he was also assaulted. She was rescued with the help of neighbors and taken to Parimal Hospital, Bangalore for treatment. She was thereafter brought to Ranchi. She has also referred to the divorce case filed at Bangalore by the petitioner, which was withdrawn later on. She has further referred to certain facts deposed in the maintenance case under section 125 of the Cr. P.C. vide M 69 /2005 filed before the Family Court, Ranchi. The husband had admitted his immoral relationship: para 32-33 of the statement have been quoted. She further stated that petitioner and the respondent agreed with the terms of compromise of the case in Mediation Centre, Banglore but there the 4 petitioner played foul. He had promised the respondent that he would pay Rs. 10 lac for life long maintenance. This fact could not be mentioned in the compromise petition as it would create problem from the Income Tax Department and his employer. However, soon after entering into the compromise he reneged from his promise. He was sarcastic upon her. Respondent felt beguiled into accepting the compromise. All other allegations were denied by the respondent in her written statement. The following five issues were framed by the learned Family Court;-
I. Whether the case as framed is maintainable?
II. Whether respondent committed act of cruelty with the
petitioner?
III. Whether petitioner himself committed act of cruelty with the respondent and is taking advantage of his own wrong?
IV. Whether Stridhan were given to the respondent and she is entitled to take it back?
V. Whether petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce?
4. During trial, the petitioner-husband adduced himself only as P.W.-
1. He exhibited sixteen documents in support of his case. Majority of which are certified copy of the order sheets or W.S. or affidavits of one or other case between the parties or their siblings who had also entered into marriage in the arrangement of mutual exchange during the same time. The documentary evidences exhibited by the petitioner are as under:
1. Exhibit-1: Certified Copy of Memorandum of Agreement dated 23.05.2008.
2. Exhibit-2 Certified Copy of order dated 08.07.2008 passed in Cr. Pet. No. 2436/2007
3. Exhibit-3 Certified copy of Order sheet of M.C. No. 2659/07 of Family Court, Banglore
4. Exhibit-4 Certified copy of order-sheet in Cr. Misc. No. 237/2006 of Family Court Banglore,
5. Exhibit-5 Certified Copy of order-sheet in Guardianship & W.C. 43/07 of Family Court, Banglore,
6. Exhibit-6 Certified Copy of Order-sheet of PCR No. 17/08 of Addl. CMM Court, Banglore,
7. Exhibit-7 Certified Copy of C.C. of Order dated 06.09.2008 of Comp. Case No. 820/06 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi,
8. Exhibit-8 Xerox Copy of C.C. of Order-sheet dated 06.12.2008 of Matrimonial Title Suit No. 145/08,
9. Exhibit-9 Original Newspaper containing notice in M.C. No. 850/2006 of Family Court Banglore,
10. Exhibit-10 C.C. of petition dated 15.12.2008 filed by respondent in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 145/08,
11. Exhibit-11 C.C. of Written Statement in Matrimonial Title Suit 5 No. 145/08,
12. Exhibit-12 Certified Copy of C.C. of Order-sheet dated 28.01.2010 in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 145/08,
13. Exhibit-13 Certified Copy of C.C. of Order dated 05.02.2007 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 885/06 by Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court,
14. Exhibit-14 Certified Copy of D.D. No. 835343 dated 26.11.2007 for Rs. 42,000/- of S.B.I.,
15. Exhibit-15 C.C. of order dated 21.04.2009 passing C.C.C. No. 520/2008(CIVIL) of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and
16. Exhibit-16 C.C. of Affidavit of Sri. Kumar Chandrabhushan in Criminal petition No. 2436 before Hon'ble Karnataka High Court.
5. The respondent adduced herself as D.W.-1 and her sister-in-law (wife of his brother) as D.W.2. She exhibited certified copy of the order of Karnataka High Court Dated 21.4.2009 in CCC No. 520 of 2008. Learned Family Court proceeded to discuss first four issues together in order to ascertain as to which amongst the two spouses was responsible for acts of cruelty and whether the petitioner was taking advantage of his own wrong. Learned family court took note of the fact that as many nine cases were filed between the parties and out of them six cases were filed by the respondent and her family. The description of nine cases are as under:
"I. Maintenance 69/05- Maintenance Case filed by the respondent at Principal Judge, Family Court Ranchi, II. C 821/05-Dowry harassment case filed by respondent at SDJM, Ranchi, III. PCR 17/08-Dowry harassment case filed again by respondent at Xth Add. Magistrate, Banglore ( Ext.6) IV. Comp 820/05-Defamation Case filed by respondent's father at J.M. Ranchi (Ext.7) V. M.C. 2659/06-Divorce Case filed by the sister's husband(respondent's elder brother)-was filed at Faridabad,later got transferred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Banglore (Ext.3) VI. G & W.C. 43/07-Child Custody case filed by his sister's husband (respondent's elder brother) at Principal Judge, Family Court, Banglore (Ext.5) VII. C.C. 22137/07-Dowry harassment case filed by the sister of present resp. husband at Xth Addl. Magistrate, Bangalore (Ext.2) VIII.C. Misc. 237/07-Dowry harassment case filed by sister of the respondent/husband herein before Principal Judge, Family Court, Banglore (Ext.4) and IX. M.C. 850/06- Divorce case filed by petitioner before Principal Judge, Family Court, Banglore, which got transferred by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the petition of the respondent(wife) to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court Ranchi, which got renumbered here as M.T.S. 14/08, the present case."
6. The evidence of the parties have been led to substantiate the allegations of torture and cruelty in marriage by either of the spouses. The 6 learned family court after analysis of the entire material evidence on record, decided these issues against the respondent/appellant-wife herein. She was held responsible for cruelty in marriage against the petitioner. Learned family court also considered the settlement arrived at between the parties (Ext. 1) during course of mediation in a proceeding in CC case no. 22137 of 2007 pending before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court i.e. in the dowry harassment case filed by the petitioner's sister against the respondent's (wife's) brother at Banglore (Ext.2). The terms of the settlement required both the parties to withdraw their respective pending cases against each other. The matrimonial divorce case was also one of them. The parties had agreed to dissolve their marriage through mutual consent as per Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act. However, it transpired that except the present divorce case, rest of the cases between the parties were withdrawn acting as per the terms of the settlement. Even the marriage between the brother of the appellant and the sister of the respondent husband stood dissolved through mutual consent on the basis of same settlement. The settlement in itself was made a part of the order passed in Criminal Petition no. 2436 of 2007 pending before the Karnataka High Court. The appellant had specifically deposed in her evidence at paragraph No. 40 that she had rescinded from the terms of mediation agreement (Ext.1) because Rs. 15 lacs was not paid to the respondent by the petitioner. The terms of settlement between the parties in relation to plea of maintenance are contained at paragraph No. 5 & 8 thereof which had also been taken note by the learned family court in the impugned order and are quoted hereunder:
"5. The parties further state that M.C850/06 filed before the Family Court, Banglore which is to be r e-numbered in the Family Court Ranchi and which is presently pending on the file of the Family Court Ranchi between Rupesh Kumar and Kumari Bimla shall stand allowed by the mutual consent of the parties who have agreed to dissolve the said marriage by treating the said petition as one under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
8. It is hereby agreed by Kumari Bimla she will not claim any past, present or future maintenance of permanent alimony on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son Arnav and the maintenance amount already paid by Mr. Rupesh Kumar is not refundable."
7. Learned family court was of the considered opinion that there was no explicit understanding or agreement between the parties in the presence of the mediator that the petitioner husband had agreed to pay Rs.
715 lacs as permanent alimony for future of the respondent-wife and the minor son Arnev. In fact, the language used in paragraph no. 8 of the settlement gave a clear indication that the respondent wife had agreed not to claim any past, present or future permanent alimony for herself or on behalf of her minor son Arnev. The maintenance amount already paid by the husband was not to be refunded. The learned family court took note of the several cases filed against one another spouse including their family members such as Dowry harassment case PCR No. 17/08 ( Ext. 6) by respondent against petitioner, Defamation Case ( Ext.7) filed by respondent's father against petitioner vide Complaint Case No. 820/05 at Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, Divorce Case filed by Respondent's brother against petitioner's sister vide MC 2659/06 ( Ext.3), child custody's case filed by respondent's brother vide Guardianship & WC 43/07 at Banglore, (Ext.5), maintenance case filed by petitioner's sister against her husband ( respondent's brother) vide Crim. Misc 237/2006, (Ext.4), Dowry harassment case filed by petitioner's sister against respondent's brother vide CC 22137/07 ( Ext.2) at Banglore etc., All those cases stood disposed of in terms of compromise and settlement dated 23.5.2008 entered into under Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2007 Ext.1 except the present matrimonial suit for divorce in hand. The learned family court drew a clear inference from the evidence on record that the respondent had been maltreating the petitioner since after one month of the marriage. She had been extravagant and making always exorbitant demand from him. She had been in the habit of telling the petitioner that he should provide her money as and when she required and if objected she used to react in abusive and threatening manner. It further appeared to the learned family court from the testimony of the respondent-wife made at para 40 that since Rs. 15 lacs had not been paid by him, she is contesting the divorce case. The learned family court came to the opinion that she was harbouring malice intention for lust of money and that she has no affinity for her matrimonial life. Her entire allegations of torture and cruelty for demand of dowry and allegation of illicit relationship of the petitioner were false and concocted. It showed that she does not want divorce. Her stands lacked bonafide. Learned family court also took into account the statement of the petitioner in maintenance case over which the respondent had placed much reliance on the question of admission of his illicit relationship with one girl Seena. On perusal of the records of M-69 of 2005, the learned court found that petitioner had simply deposed that Seena was known to 8 him and he had also identified the letters written to each other. They had worked together for one year in service. He had also identified the photographs with Seena. There was nothing further to corroborate the allegation of adultery made by respondent against her husband. Photographs and letters did not support the case of the respondent that he had been in illicit relation with Seena. These allegations of illicit relationship were treated as unsubstantiated and unwarranted acts of mental cruelty.
8. On the discussions of the available material pleadings of the parties, the learned family court found the case maintainable on the ground of cruelty and, accordingly, proceeded to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent by a decree of divorce.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings rendered by the family court, interalia, on the following grounds:-
i. The impugned order is based not on explicit findings of cruelty against the petitioner-husband on the part of the wife but rather on an alleged breach of an undertaking arrived at during the course of mediation.
ii. Cruelty in marriage is not a normal wear and tear of daily life but something more serious and grave where the suffering spouse has a feeling of inherent danger to his life or threat to his normal day to day living.There were no such materials on record to come to such a finding against the wife. iii. The evidence on record brought by the appellant-wife on the contrary showed that it was she who had been forcibly sent back to Delhi against her wishes in February, 2001; again left alone at New Delhi Railway Station on 27.04.2002, she had been made to face repeated abuses on the ground that she was an unattractive woman with no physical appeal. iv. The evidence on record also established relationship of the husband with a Kerelian woman namely, Seena with whom not only he had premarital but also post marital relation. v. The husband-respondent herein also continued to brutalize her even after birth of child in December,2004 and she was left to fend for herself and the child.
vi. The petitioner, in fact, had hurled dirty language against her father and the appellant which was the basis for the defamation case filed by the appellant's father.
vii. There are other evidences on record to show that she had 9 been assaulted by her husband in the month of April, 2005. Her brother Sashibhushan rescued her from the matrimonial house and got her treated at Parimal Hospital, Bangalore, whereafter she was brought to Ranchi.
It is also an undisputed fact that the husband had filed divorce case in the year 2002 but later on withdrawn it without any liberty to file a fresh case, perhaps at the insistence of elders and well-wishers of the family. In such a case, alleged acts of cruelty stood condoned on his part and cannot be again relied upon in the present suit. The petitioner- husband has also reneged on his promise of paying an alimony of Rs. 15, 00,000/- towards lifelong maintenance of appellant and her child.
10. Based on these material evidences, it is submitted that they go to show that the petitioner-husband was responsible for cruelty in marriage. It is he who has provided reasonable cause to the appellant wife to remain away from the matrimonial home. The impugned judgment is, therefore, unsustainable on the grounds of cruelty in marriage as held against the appellant-wife.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has defended the impugned findings and supported the reasons rendered by the learned family court. He has also referred to the number of false cases lodged by the appellant-wife against the husband which have been withdrawn on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. If there were any substances in the prosecution launched, the appellant had no reason to withdraw those criminal cases on the basis of the same settlement (Ext.-1). The other couple being, brother of the appellant and the sister of the respondent-husband got a decree of divorce through mutual consent on the basis of the same settlement, but it was only on account of the unfair insistence of the appellant for alimony of Rs. 15, 00,000/- that she failed to honour the settlement arrived at between the parties and agree for divorce through mutual consent. Her claim for alimony is on the face of it negated by the explicit agreement entered between them as also recorded at para 8 thereof. The appellant has also made several false accusation of illicit relation of the respondent-husband with a Kerelian woman, namely, Seena which were unsubstantiated on scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the appellant during the family court proceedings. It was only a malicious intent of the appellant to injure the reputation of the respondent-husband and settle her scores. The entire pleadings and evidence on record, on being considered in entirety would lead to the only inference that the appellant 10 was guilty of cruelty in marriage, despite all overtures on the part of the respondent-husband to keep her well. The parties have been living separately since 2004 and as such, the relationship between them had come to a stage of irretrievable breakdown of marriage which also justifies the decision of the learned family court in granting a decree of divorce.
12. We gave considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties at length and also gone through the impugned judgment and the material evidence on record relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. The relevant material facts as borne out from the pleadings on record and from the evidence adduced by the parties, in the first place clearly goes to show that the marriage through an arrangement of mutual exchange between the parties rarely went through a phase of happy conjugal life. The volume of cases launched by one or the other parties, total 9 in number, across various courts in India are ample testimony to that. The documentary evidence brought on record by the petitioner- husband are by and large certified copies of the orders or written statement or affidavits filed in one or other cases instituted between the parties.
(i). The appellant-wife had instituted a dowry case before the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi being Complaint Case No. 821 of 2005.
(ii). She had also filed a maintenance case bearing no. 69 of 2005 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi
(iii). A Dowry case bearing PCR 17 of 2008 was also filed by the appellant before the court of learned Xth Additional Magistrate, Banglore ( Ext.6)
(iv). The appellant's father had also filed a Defamation case u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code being Comp. 820 of 2005 against the respondent herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi (Ext.7).
To complete the list of cases it would also be worthwhile to mention that :
(v) A divorce case was filed by the brother of the appellant against his wife i.e. sister of the respondent herein being M.C. case No. 2659 of 2006 at Faridabad which later on got transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Banglore(Ext.3).
(vi). A child custody case was also filed by the brother of the appellant being G & W.C. 43 of 07 before the learned Principal Judge,Family Court, Banglore (Ext.5) 11
(vii). The sister of the respondent herein had on her part also filed a dowry harassment case being C.C. 22137 of 2007 in the court of Xth Additional Magistrate, Banglore (Ext.-2)
(viii). Another dowry harassment case was filed by the respondent's sister being Criminal Misc Case No. 237 of 2007 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Banglore ( Ext.-4).
All these case were apart from the present divorce case filed by the respondent-husband herein which stood transferred to the court of learned Family Court, Ranchi, pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that except the present divorce case, all other cases instituted between the parties including the dowry harassment case filed by the appellant in 2005 and 2008, defamation case filed by appellant's father stood withdrawn pursuant to the agreement at Ext.-1, entered into between the parties, during the course of mediation on 23.05.2008. The terms of the agreement are explicit and have been quoted herein above as well. They negate the contention of the appellant that the respondent had undertaken to pay permanent alimony to the tune of Rs. 15, 00,000/- for present or future maintenance of the appellant and her minor son Arnev. In fact, the agreement reflected that the maintenance amount already paid by the respondent-husband would not be refundable. The appellant in such circumstance, is unjustified in raising the bogey of permanent alimony said to be agreed upon during the course of the settlement. As per her deposition also mentioned above, the non-payment of such alimony was a primary reason for her to resile from the settlement and refuse to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent under section13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
14. Resiling from an undertaking may not in itself be an act of cruelty but the other materials on record being independently appreciated would also lead to the inference that the appellant had been indulging in false accusation against the respondent on one pretext or other. The false accusation of illicit relationship of the husband with a Kerelian woman, namely, Seena based upon certain depositions made by the husband in M. Case no. 69 of 2005 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi were held to be unsubstantiated by the learned family court. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show from evidence on record that except the fact that the husband had deposed 12 that Seena was known to him and he had also identified the letters written to each other and the photographs with Seena and that she used to study with him in college and further they had worked together for one year in the service, there was nothing more to corroborate the allegation of adultery alleged by the respondent against her husband. These photographs and letters do not support the allegation of illicit relationship with the said girl Seena. If false accusation of such serious nature, are made by one spouse against the other, it in itself would amount to an act of mental cruelty as also held by the Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Versus K. Sunita reported in (2014)16 SCC 34, para-1. In the case of K. Srinivas Rao Versus D.A. Deepa reported in (2013)5 SCC 226, it was held that making unfounded indecent /defamatory allegations against spouse or his/her relatives in pleadings, filing repeated false complaints or cases in court, issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on business prospectus or job of spouse, etc., are all illustrative cases of mental cruelty which would warrant grant of divorce. In the said case the complaint was filed by the respondent-wife against the appellant-husband and his family members under section 498A of the IPC wherein besides alleging ill-treatment and harassment for dowry, it was alleged that mother of the appellant husband had asked respondent wife to sleep with her father-in-law. Said complaint was found to have been falsely lodged out of frustration on the part of the wife. It was held that conduct of the wife in filing of complaint making such unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegation certainly constituted cruelty, hence the decree of divorce was granted. In the case of Malathi Ravi V. B.V. Ravi reported in (2014) 7 SCC 640, the Apex Court, in the context of the facts of the case, at para 43 had occasion to observe that the husband has reason to feel that he has been humiliated, for allegations have been made against him, which were not correct; his relatives were dragged into the matrimonial controversy. The launching of criminal prosecution can also be perceived from the spectrum of conduct. In that case magistrate had recorded the judgment of acquittal and the wife had preferred an appeal before the High Court after obtaining leave. She had chosen to withdraw the appeal, after the State Government preferred an appeal in the Court of Session. All this conduct manifestly showed the widening of the rift between the parties and the increased bitterness. In such a situation, the husband was likely to lament in every breath and the vibrancy of life melts to give way to sad 13 story of life.
15. In the present case, as we have found there was several criminal prosecution cases launched by the appellant against her husband including on the part of her father also on a charge of defamation which all had got withdrawn pursuant to the agreement entered into between the parties on 23.05.2008 (Ext.-1), during course of mediation. The allegations remained unsubstantiated but certainly created a wide rift in the relationship which cannot be repaired.
16. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, discussed above, we do not find any reason to arrive at a different opinion as the finding rendered by the learned family court are not vulnerable on any such counts.
17. Accordingly, instant appeal stands dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J) (Ratnaker Bhengra,J) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 2nd May, 2018 Sharda/KNR/ NAFR