Jharkhand High Court
Leena Sinha vs Dr Siddharth Sinha on 2 August, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 JHA 641, 2018 (4) AJR 423, (2018) 4 JCR 481 (JHA), (2019) 2 CIVLJ 27
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Ratnaker Bhengra
1
Appeal from Original Decree No. 107 of 2017
[Against the judgment dated 27.03.2017 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribag in Matrimonial Title
Suit No. 18 of 2015]
Leena Sinha ... Appellant
Versus
Dr Siddharth Sinha ... Respondent
--
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ...
For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate;
Ms. Kirti Saboo, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate;
Mr. J.S. Tiwary, Advocate.
...
By Court:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Appellant is the wife aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.03.2017 rendered by the learned Family Court, Hazaribagh, whereunder the Matrimonial Title Suit No. 18 of 2015 instituted by the petitioner- husband/ respondent herein for decree of divorce, has been allowed.
3. Petitioner/ respondent pleaded before the Family Court, inter alia, as under:
Marriage between the parties were solemnized on 24.06.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs at Ramgarh. The spouses lived at Pune till 07.07.2011 from where she came to Ranchi by air and went to Patratu on the pretext of illness of her mother. Since then she was living at Patratu with her parents. Petitioner took several steps to bring her back but she refused on one pretext or the other. Finally, he instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights bearing M.T.S. No. 38 of 2013. She appeared and filed a written statement after several adjournments and made false allegations against his conduct. She, however, undertook to live with the petitioner if he kept her with dignity. Matter was referred to the mediation centre but respondent did not appear before the mediation centre on a number of dates i.e. 17.09.2013, 24.09.2013 though the petitioner was present. As a result, mediation failed. This showed her intention not to consummate the marriage. However, due to 2 the insistence of the Family Court, petitioner went to her house on 18.04.2014 whereafter she came with him. The M.T.S. No. 38 of 2013 was accordingly permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 24.04.2014.
According to the petitioner, after withdrawal of the matrimonial suit, she again insisted of going back to her parents' house and when the petitioner objected, she threatened that she would never come back to the matrimonial house. Petitioner had to filed a suit for divorce being M.T.S. No. 98 of 2014. However, on intervention of dignified and respectable persons, the matter was resolved and on 26.06.2014, she came to the petitioner's house and started residing at Matwari undertaking to abide by the terms of compromise. She however went to her parental house without consent of the petitioner and her in-laws and without any reason on 04.12.2014. While going back, she threatened to implicate them in false case of dowry. During her stay from 26.06.2014 to 03.12.2014, she never consummated the marriage. She went to Mahila Police Station, Hazaribagh and gave a written complaint containing false allegations against him. Petitioner alleged that she used to remain regularly in contact with one Umakant, which could be evident from her call details. She had relationship with him before marriage with the petitioner. She used to have long hours of phone calls with him having Mobile No. 9418050246 and 7054846977. Respondent has throughout subjected the petitioner to mental cruelty by making false allegations of wrongful behaviour and refused to live with him. She has made wild allegations which were far from truth. She also filed Maintenance Case No. 191 of 2013 against him with inflated claims on false and frivolous allegations but the same got dismissed. Petitioner was convinced that she is not going to live with him and there was no point continuing with the marriage. The cause of the action for the suit arose on 24.06.2011, the date of marriage and thereafter day to day till 04.12.2014 when she left for her parental house.
4. Respondent appeared on notice and filed her written statement. She denied the averment made in the plaint, save and except, those which were specifically admitted. She accepted the factum of marriage on 24.06.2011 and having lived as spouses at Hazaribagh. She stated that during marriage, her father had given Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry to the petitioner. She had lived with the petitioner from 25.06.2011 to 29.06.2011. On 30.06.2011 they had gone to Darjeeling for honeymoon 3 and stayed there till 06.07.2011, during which period she consummated the marriage by having sexual relationship, on number of occasions. She went to Pune from Darjeeling on 07.07.2011 and stayed with him for more than 20 days till 27.07.2011. She came to Ranchi by air but no one came to receive her from the matrimonial side. She had to go to her parental house after waiting for 3-4 hours at the airport. According to her, the marriage was consummated on number of occasions during their honeymoon and at Pune also. Petitioner had made false statements without any evidence about the steps, he allegedly made to bring her back. She had never refused to come back to the matrimonial home. Her in-laws did not want to keep her and subjected her to cruelty and torture on phone, which she complained to her husband but he failed to pay any heed. Rather, he assaulted her and threatened with dire consequences. Suit for restitution of conjugal rights was instituted only to save his skin. She was suffering from very high fever, therefore, she could not attend the mediation on few occasions. She had conveyed her intention in the said suit to live with her husband if he keeps her with full dignity. On 11.04.2014, pursuant to the Court's intervention, petitioner came to take her back from her parental home and she accompanied him. M.T.S. No. 38 of 2013 was accordingly withdrawn. However, petitioner violated the order passed by Family Court instead of keeping her at the matrimonial house insisted her to go her parental home. When she objected she was brutally assaulted. The matter was again resolved with the intervention of dignified persons and on 26.06.2014, she came back to her matrimonial home. She further alleged that the divorce case being M.T.S. No. 98 of 2014 was filed on 28.04.2014 without any cogent reasons only for the purpose of harassing her. Further grounds of desertion taken in M.T.S. No. 98 of 2014 were not sustainable in the eye of law because according to the petitioner himself, they had lived together from 18.04.2014 to 23.04.2014. She again came back to the matrimonial home and lived for the period 26.06.2014 to 04.12.2014 when their marriage was consummated. They had physical relationship a number of times. However, on 04.12.2014, she was thrown out forcefully without assigning any reason. After one and half month only the instant suit was filed on 19.01.2015 on the ground of desertion which is not maintainable in the facts of the case. She filed a case at Mahila Police Station 4 alleging brutal assault by him on 03.12.2014 and being thrown out of the matrimonial house. According to her, the instant suit was filed by the petitioner only to save the skin. Petitioner had never complained of any contact with one Umakant in the Matrimonial Title Suit No. 98 of 2014 filed earlier. These allegations made in the instant suit were false and fabricated. He was only a family friend and close to her family. She further alleged that the petitioner always used unparliamentarily language and abusive words against her. She had not been maintained by him after she came back from Pune, which was the reason for filing of maintenance case. Based on these facts and grounds, she prayed for rejection of the suit in limine.
5. The following issues were framed by the learned Family Court for adjudication on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:
(i) Whether the suit of petitioner as framed is maintainable ?
(ii) Whether petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit?
(iii) Whether the respondent has after solemnization of marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty?
(iv) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of this petition for divorce?
(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage with respondent?
(vi) To what relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled?
6. Petitioner examined three witnesses, namely, PW-1, Dr. S.K. Sinha; PW-2, Niranjan Rukhaiyar; PW-3, Dr. Siddhartha Sinha, petitioner himself.
7. Respondent examined herself as RW-1.
8. Petitioner also exhibited the following documents in support of his case:
"Ext.1: Letter of Dr. S.K. Sinha dated 23.11.2011. Ext.2: Carbon copy of notice dated 14.02.2012 sent through Abhaya Shankar Prasad, Advocate Ext.3: Certified copy of letter dated 02.08.2012 written by Dr. S.K. Sinha to Dilip Singh, Mukhiya.
Ext.4: Certified copy of order sheet dated 16.02.2013 to 24.04.2014 of MTS No. 38/2013.
Ext.5: Certified copy of order sheet dated 28.04.2014 to 22.07.2014 of MTS no. 98/2014.
Ext.6: Certified copy of order sheets dated 19.11.2013 to 07.12.2014 of Maintenance Case No. 191/2013. Ext.7: Certified copy of order sheets dated 22.04.2015 to
09.06.2015 of Maintenance Case No. 89/2015.
Ext.8: Certified copy of order sheets dated 15.10.2015 and 20.05.2016 of G.R. No. 4399/2015.
5Ext.9: Certified copy of order dated 20.06.2016 passed in G.R. No. 4399/2015.
Ext.10: Certified copy of Final Form in G.R. No. 4399/2015."
9. Issue Nos. iii & iv were taken together for adjudication. PW-3, petitioner, supported his case through examination-in-chief. He made reference to the factum of marriage, their stay at Darjeeling and Pune till 12.07.2011 whereafter she came to Ranchi by Air and went to Patratu on pretext of illness of her mother. He referred to the institution of suit for restitution of conjugal rights, M.T.S. No. 38 of 2013 and her non- appearance on a number of dates, during mediation, which ultimately failed. He also made reference to the order of the learned Family Court whereafter he went to her house to bring her back on 18.04.2014. However, after withdrawal of the suit, she refused to go back to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, M.T.S. No. 98 of 2014 was filed which was again resolved on intervention of the respected persons of the locality. She came back to her matrimonial house on 26.06.2014 and lived there till 04.12.2014. She left on that date and threatened to implicate him along with his parents in false criminal case of dowry. A case alleging false allegation of dowry was instituted before Mahila Police Station, Hazaribagh. He made reference to the contact of the respondent with one Umakant. Reference was also made to the Maintenance Case No. 191 of 2013 which was dismissed. Thereafter she again filed Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2015. She also had filed a Complaint Case No. 808 of 2015 under Section 498A of the IPC before the learned CJM, Hazaribagh also containing allegations under Dowry Prohibition Act against him and his relatives. These allegations were false. He denied having received Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry during marriage. He denied having physical relationship between 26.06.2014 to 03.12.2014, during her stay at the matrimonial house. In his cross- examination, he accepted filing two divorce cases, first on 24.04.2014 and second on 19.01.2015. He further stated about going in depression and unable to come for cross-examination. He underwent treatment under Dr. Hiralal Sah and produced the fitness certificate before the Court. He was appointed as Medical Officer, at Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh in October, 2012 but had gone in depression and was not able to attend official duties. He denied having ousted her on 03.12.2014. According to him, he always fulfilled his marital obligation but the respondent was not interested to live from very beginning.
6Father of the petitioner, PW-1, supported the case made out by him. So did the PW-2, a relative of the petitioner.
10. Respondent examined herself as the only witness RW-1. She narrated about the marriage on 24.06.2011 at Patratu, payment of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- at the time of marriage by her father and their stay for honeymoon at Darjeeling and thereafter at Pune till 27.07.2011. She also knew about the suit, M.T.S. No. 38 of 2013 and that she had filed written statement on 06.08.2013. According to her, she could not attend mediation due to illness. She had stated in her written report that she is willing to live with her husband with full dignity. Pursuant to the conciliation held by the Family Court, the suit was withdrawn on 24.04.2014. However, her husband was not ready to bring her, then she returned to her paternal house. The petitioner again filed the Divorce Suit No. 98 of 2014, in which, she appeared and the matter was resolved. She stayed between 26.06.2014 to 03.12.2014 when she was thrown out of the matrimonial house after assaulting her. She filed a complaint at Mahila Police Station, Hazaribagh and only thereafter the instant suit was filed for divorce. She again had filed a Maintenance Case No. 89 of 2014, which was pending in the Ramgarh Family Court. She had also filed a Complaint Case No. 808 of 2015 before the CJM, Hazaribagh against the petitioner and her parents-in-law. In her cross- examination, she accepted that they had no issue. She alleged torture at Pune also. She further stated that in the year 2013 she lived at Patna where she had gone for study from Patratu. The maintenance case was dismissed for default. She denied talking with Umakant as alleged by the petitioner whom she admitted was a friend from before her marriage. She denied that during pendency of the cases between the parties the conjugal life was ruined and her husband was deprived from conjugal relations. She had no knowledge of the depression that her husband complained of.
11. Learned Family Court proceeded to analyze the evidence on record and decided the issue of desertion against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent, primarily on the ground that as per the case of the petitioner, the respondent had come on 26.6.2014 and lived for six months till 4.12.2014, whereas the suit was filed on 19.1.2015 without waiting for the mandatory period of two years before its presentation in terms of section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu 7 Marriage Act. Learned Family Court however proceeded to answer the issue of cruelty in favour of the husband for the following reasons:
(i) As per the case of the respondent, she stayed from the date of her marriage on 24.6.2011 till 27th July 2011 at Pune with the petitioner but thereafter did not return to her matrimonial home despite steps taken by him.
(ii) Petitioner had to take steps for restitution of conjugal rights being MTS No. 38 of 2013 which was amicably resolved. Only thereafter she returned to matrimonial home on 18.4.2014, but she left for her paternal house alone at her own will and did not come back again.
(iii) This compelled the petitioner to institute divorce suit bearing MTS No. 98 of 2014 on 28.4.2014 which ended in compromise ( Ext. 5) on 22.7.2014.
(iv) The respondent filed criminal case before Mahila Police Station against her husband and his parents alleging assault on 3.12.2014 and her being thrown out of the matrimonial house.
(v) She again filed a case under section 498A of the IPC bearing Complaint Case No. 808 of 2015 before learned CJM, Hazaribagh. Both the cases were found to be false and final form was submitted by the police which was accepted by the court. Exts.-9 & 10 were adduced in support thereof.
(vi) Except the respondent, no other witness including her parents came to support her case during trial.
(vii) The respondent in her evidence also accepted that their matrimonial life was not peaceful and happy. She had not denied that time to time she left her matrimonial house and remained away from her husband for maximum time from the date of her marriage to the date of filing of the petition.
12. It was an admitted position that marriage of solemnized on 24.6.2011 but after 12.7.2011 till 18.4.2014 she lived separately from her husband. Therefore, strict onus lied upon her to prove the validity of such long separation just after the marriage. Respondent had not assigned any cogent reason for that.
813. Learned family court was persuaded to come to an opinion that if the other party of the marriage leaves away without any reasonable cause for three years just after the marriage, it is painful and rather cruel upon the suffering spouse. Though she had deposed at para 29 of her statement that she was tortured at Pune by her husband but no date, time and manner was indicated. No complaint was either made about such torture at Pune or Patratu thereafter. Though the respondent alleged that after reconciliation when the suit for restitution of conjugal rights was withdrawn on 24.4.2014, petitioner threw her articles in the court premises and compelled her to go to her parental house, but no one turned up to support this allegation including the family members of the respondent or any other person who would be witness to the incidence in a public place like a court. Respondent had not made any complaint before the court on that date regarding the alleged conduct of the petitioner. No such corroboration from any side or information to the court was either made. The learned court relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao vs. D.A. Deepa reported in (2013)5 SCC 226 and observed that repeated filing of false complaints and cases in court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to mental cruelty to the other spouse. In the instant case, the respondent had filed false criminal cases against the petitioner and his relatives, which amounted to mental cruelty. Filing of such false cases would have entailed suffering and loss of mental peace upon the petitioner, who became a patient of depression and was confined to a Room. Learned Family court ultimately came to the opinion that the relationship between the parties had become so sour that peaceful matrimonial life was ruled out. The respondent was found responsible for cruelty in marriage. As such the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on grounds of cruelty.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant after placing this statement of respondent /appellant herein made during trial, submitted that the leaned Family Court did not consider the evidence of the wife in proper perspective at all. The appellant had explained through her statement that the petitioner was responsible for keeping her away 9 from the matrimonial home for all these three years. He had made no efforts to bring her back to the Matrimonial Home. She was compelled to file a maintenance case, as she was unable to meet her ends. However, because of her financial condition, she could not prosecute the maintenance case which was dismissed for default. Petitioner created conditions so as to keep the appellant/wife away from the Matrimonial Home. It was a case of forced desertion on account of the conduct of the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner to get rid of the wife is more evident from the number of divorce cases, filed by him, one after the other. He also made false allegations about her character and relationship with one Uma Kant, which remained unsubstantiated. This would amount to causing pain and mental cruelty upon the appellant-wife. No such allegation was made in the previous divorce case being MTS No. 98 of 2014 by him. She submits that the entire case of the parties have been considered from the perspective of the petitioner only without due regard to the case of the respondent-appellant/ wife herein. As such the findings suffer from mis-appreciation of the evidence on record and errors of law which need to be interfered in appeal. The learned family court has also failed to grant any alimony to the wife after decreeing the suit pursuant to the dissolution of the marriage.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent/ husband herein had supported the findings rendered by the Family Court. He submits that institution of false cases repeatedly by the appellant /wife which were proved through Ext.-9 & 10, fully support the findings of mental cruelty rendered by the Family Court. The petitioner made efforts to restitute the conjugal rights by filing Matrimonial Suit No. 38 of 2013 as well. Despite resolution of the suit by the efforts of the Family Court, she did not stay for long in the matrimonial home and left without any reasonable cause. Petitioner again tried to bring her back even after institution of a suit for divorce (MTS 98 of 2014) but she did not consummate the marriage during the period of her stay from 26.6.2014 to 4.12.2014. In fact, she had no reason to stay away from the matrimonial home. These facts have been duly considered by the learned court, while decreeing the suit. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this 10 Court in the case of Manju Kumari Singh @ Smt. Manju Singh vs. Avinash Kumar Singh reported in 2017 (3) JBCJ 169. The parents of the husband and the petitioner have suffered due to such irresponsible conduct of the appellant. The marriage has become dead and has therefore been rightly dissolved by the learned family court. The instant appeal is without merit and deserves to be dismissed.
16. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties at length; gone through the relevant material evidence on record as relied upon by them and also the impugned judgment. We have also taken note of the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court cited by learned counsel for the parties. We have elaborately discussed the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on record by them. Culled out therefrom, it is apparent that immediately after the solemnization of marriage on 24.6.2011, parties lived together during their Honeymoon period at Darjeeling and at Pune till 12.7.2011 or 27.7.2011, when the appellant came from Pune to stay with her parents at Patratu. According to her statement, she went to Patna to undertake study and did not show any overt act on her part to return to her matrimonial home for three years till 18.4.2014. For a newly wedded wife, to remain away from the matrimonial home, for such a long period without any basis or reasonable cause in itself is worth explanation on her part which she has failed to justify. On the contrary, the husband took steps for restitution of the marriage by filing Matrimonial Suit No. 38 of 2013. Mediation failed perhaps, also because of non-appearance of the appellant on few dates which she has tried to explain on account of her illness. However, at the instance of the learned Family Court, the parties united on 18.4.2014 when the husband went to bring her back from her paternal house. The suit was withdrawn on 24.4.2014 in happy circumstances but it further appears that she went back to her parents' house which compelled the husband to institute a suit for divorce being MTS No. 98 of 2014 on 28.4.2014. This suit was again compromised on the initiatives of the respectable members of the locality on 22.7.2014 (Ext.-5). This resolution led to the return of the appellant to the matrimonial home on 24.6.2014 but the stay remained short till 11 4.12.2014 only. Parties are on contest on the issue whether the marriage was consummated during that period or not. Be that as it may, the appellant left the matrimonial home on 4.12.2014 and instituted a criminal case before Mahila Police Station, Hazaribagh against the husband and his parents. She again instituted a complaint case bearing no. 808 of 2015 alleging demand of dowry and cruelty in marriage under section 498A of the IPC and also the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, both the cases were found false as final form was submitted and accepted by the learned court. Ext.-9 &10 have been adduced in support thereof. Institution of such false cases have been treated as acts of mental cruelty in the judgments rendered by the Apex Court such as in the case of K. Srinivas Rao Versus D.A. Deepa reported in (2013)5 SCC 226 para- 16 and in the case of K. Srinivas Versus K. Sunita reported in (2014)16 SCC 34, para-3.
It is profitable to extract the opinion of the Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao Versus D.A. Deepa, reported in (2013)5 SCC 226 at para 16, which reads as under:
"16. Thus, to the instances illustrative of mental cruelty noted in Samar Ghosh, we could add a few more. Making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings, filing of complaints or issuing notices or news items which may have adverse impact on the business prospect or the job of the spouse and filing repeated false complaints and cases in the court against the spouse would, in the facts of a case, amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse."
Reliance may also be placed in the case of K. Srinivas Versus K. Sunita reported in (2014)16 SCC 34.
17. Institution of such vexatious false cases on false allegation definitely has an effect of entailing mental cruelty upon the other spouse. In the present case, evidence on record also shows that the petitioner-husband had gone into depression and was unable to attend his duties as a doctor for some period of time. The relationship between the parties, therefore, appears to have become so sour that it was unlikely to be revived. All emotional bounds between the parties have also dried up on account of such broken relationship. The learned Family Court found these instances as acts of mental cruelty, which we do not find any reason to disturb. The parties are 12 not in a position to lead a happy married life in such circumstances. The learned Family Court, however, rightly answered the issue of desertion against the petitioner as the minimum mandatory period of two years separation in terms of Section13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, was not satisfied. The discussion on the material evidence on record, in the light of the pleadings of the parties, does not make out any grounds to interfere with the findings of cruelty rendered by the learned Family Court.
18. On the totality of facts and circumstances and for the reasons recorded herein above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly, dismissed. As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant we leave it to the appellant to invoke the provision of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to approach the Family Court for grant of alimony as there are no such sufficient material pleadings or evidence on record to render any finding thereupon. Decree Accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated-2nd August, 2018, Sharda/S.B -NAFR