Jharkhand High Court
Mira Singh vs Ranvijay Singh on 21 January, 2020
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F. A. No. 68 of 2014
---
Mira Singh ..Appellant
vs.-
Ranvijay Singh ......... Respondent
---
CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kailash Prasad Deo
--
For the Appellant : Mr. Arbind Kumar Choudhary. Adv.
For the Respondent : Ms. Puja Kumari, Adv.
---
By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Appellant is the wife aggrieved by the decree of divorce rendered by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 122 of 2012 vide judgment dated 16.04.2014/decree dated 26.04.2014. The suit was instituted by the petitioner-husband/respondent herein on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1) (i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
3. As per the case of the parties briefly narrated hereunder, marriage took place on 8th June, 2003 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at village- Sarfabad, P.S.Gourichowk, District-Patna and they started leading their conjugal life at Sector-XII/A, Qtr. No. 2272, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. Petitioner-husband alleged in his plaint that the mother of the respondent/appellant herein, a leader of J.M.M. Political Party was a dictatorial lady, who used to unnecessarily interfere in their matrimonial life and visit their resident frequently and prevailed upon his wife not to do household work and there was no issue born out of the wed lock. Petitioner further alleged that his wife/appellant herein neither prepared food nor tea nor treated the guests and his mother had to prepare cook food and serve the family members. She often left for her parents' home without information. Thereafter, a false case was instituted under Section 498A of I.P.C being B.S.City P.S.Case No. 35/2006 in which father of the petitioner-husband was sent to jail. He alleged that the case got compromised on acceptance of the conditions imposed by the father of the respondent-wife by taking back all the ornaments and Rs. 1,00,000/- also. Petitioner-husband also withdrew the divorce suit filed by him being TMS No. 6/2006, which was reportedly 2. dismissed for default. Thereafter, petitioner's father got him separated and he along with his wife went to Patna and had independent residence. He was working as a driver in Patna but respondent-wife refused to cook food and used to venture out from the house and return late in the night at around 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM. On being asked, she used to enter into scuffle and abused him also on a number of occasions. She used to pressurize him to go back to Bokaro. Petitioner met with an accident and suffered fracture in his lower limb and waist and was admitted to a Hospital at Patna fromwhere he was brought to Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro for better treatment. He alleged that respondent left him on his death bed at hospital and never came back to the matrimonial home since 30.03.2007. Even after release of the petitioner from the hospital she again filed a case under Sections 498A & 324 of IPC against the petitioner and his entire family members, which was pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Bokaro. Father of the respondent-wife had again demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- to compromise the case, but petitioner did not succumb and fulfill his demand. He filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro. On these grounds petitioner alleged that respondent has deserted him since 30.03.2007 and there is no relationship of husband and wife between them. He sought decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
4. Respondent-wife, in her written statement, before the Family Court, Bokaro pleaded that the suit was not maintainable on facts or in law and the allegations were totally false. She denied averments made in the plaint and stated that she was tortured by the petitioner and his family members both mentally and physically which was the reason for institution of B.S.City P.S. Case No. 35/2006 under Sections 498A of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry of Prohibition Act. She denied that her father had taken any amount or ornaments to compromise that case. She stated that in the light of the compromise, the petitioner and his family members were acquitted in G.R. Case No. 163/2006. She further stated that petitioner had gone to Patna with consent of his father and other allegations were false and fabricated. According to her, petitioner was shifted to Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro as his father was an employee of Bokaro Steel Plant. She further stated that the petitioner and his family members again assaulted and tortured her, which led to institution of B.S.City P.S. Case No. 447/2007 under Section 498A of IPC against the petitioner and his family members. She denied any 3. demand by her father to compromise the case. According to her, the present divorce suit has been filed only to save his skin from the criminal case and to pressurise her to compromise the case. Therefore, the suit should be dismissed.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned Family Court:
1. Whether this suit is maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether there is any valid cause of action for filing this suit?
3. Whether the respondent has treated the plaintiff with cruelty and implicated the plaintiff and his family members in a false case vide B.S. City P.S. Case No. 35/06 and later on respondent compromised this case after receiving Rs. 1,00,000/-(one lakh) and ornaments of respondent?
4. Whether the respondent has fled away leaving the petitioner on his death bed when he was admitted for treatment after meeting with a serious road accident?
5. Whether the plaintiff and his family members have tortured the respondent and assaulted her for demand of dowry after solemnization of marriage?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
6. On behalf of petitioner-husband four witnesses were examined, namely, P.W.1 Sarda Nand Singh (father of the petitioner), P.W.2, Manju Devi, P.W.3 Rajendra Kumar Tanti and P.W.4 petitioner himself.
7. On behalf of the petitioner the following documents were adduced during evidence:
(I) Marked-X for identification, Xerox copy of receiving of Jewelery by father of O.P.(Original Copy of the same marked as Exhibit-I).
(II) Marked-X/1 for identification, Xerox copy of information petition vide No. 87/07 filed on 02.4.07. (Original copy of the same marked as Exhibit-2) (III) Marked-X/2 for identification, Xerox copy of discharge Ticket of Keshav Hospital, Patna where plaintiff was admitted for treatment. (Original copy of the same is marked as Exhibit-3). (IV) Market-X/3 to X/8 for identification, Xerox copy of treatment 4. of plaintiff in BGH, Bokaro (V) Marked-X/9 for identification, Xerox copy of discharge Ticket of BGH regarding treatment of plaintiff. (original copy of the same marked as Exhibit-4).
(VI) Marked-X/10 for identification Xerox copy of photograph regarding treatment of plaintiff.
(VII) Marked-X/11 for identification, Xerox copy of application filed by father of the plaintiff to S.P., Bokaro (VIII) C.C of judgment passed in G.R. No. 163/06 marked Exhibit-5 (IX) C.C of order sheet dated 10.02.2006 to 10.04.2006 of B.S. City P.S.Case No. 35/06 marked Exhibit-6 (X) Receiving Copy of application filed to O/C Sector-XII P.S. B.S. City by father of the plaintiff marked Exhibit-7. (XI) C.C of joint compromise petition filed in B.S. City P.S. Case No. 35/06 dated 10.4.2006 marked Exhibit-8.
8. Defendant also adduced four witnesses in her support, namely, O.P.W-1 Arvind Prasad Singh (father of the respondent-wife), O.P.W.-2 Deo Munu Singh, O.P.W.-3 Ramjanam Kushwaha and O.P.W.-4 Mira Singh, the appellant. Besides oral evidence, she adduced the following documents in her support. Exhibit-A original copy of summon along with copy of plaint issued to respondent in TMS No. 06/06, Exhibit-B order sheets dated 10.01.2006 to 22.04.2006 of T.M.S No. 06/2006 of the court of Principal Judge, Bokaro and Xerox copy of C.C to plaint of TMS No. 06/2006 marked-Y for identification.
9. Learned Family Court took up the Issue nos. (iii), (iv) and (v) and discussed the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on their behalf in order to come to a finding that the marriage between the parties had irretrievably broken down since they had been living in separation since April, 2008 for more than 5 years. Therefore, they could not be compelled to restore their relationship in such an adverse situation. A decree of divorce was the need of hour and would serve the interest of justice. These issues were accordingly answered together without rendering a separate finding on the issue of cruelty or whether the ingredient of desertion were made out on the part of the petitioner. Issue nos. 1 to 6 were also decided in favour of the petitioner. Marriage between the parties was dissolved by the impugned judgment which is under appeal on behalf of the appellant-wife herein. It is 5. also evident that while dissolving the marriage, learned Family Court has not awarded any permanent alimony in favour of the wife.
10. Rival arguments have been addressed against the findings recorded by the learned Family Court and in support of the judgment by learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of the wife, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a fundamental error in the findings recorded by the learned Family Court on Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 since instead of giving a clear finding on the grounds of cruelty or desertion, the learned Court has ventured to hold that the marriage deserves to be dissolved on the grounds of irretrievable break down of the marriage. As is well known, there are no recognized grounds of irretrievable break down of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act for a Family Court to decree the suit for divorce. On the point of cruelty, institution of a criminal case by the wife on the allegations of physical and mental torture within 7 years of marriage which constitute an offence under Section 498A of IPC, the learned Court could not have drawn an inference against the appellant-wife herein, since it was a lawful remedy being prosecuted by her. It is another matter that the criminal case being B.S.City P.S. Case No. 35/06(G.R. No. 163/06) ended in acquittal of the respondent-husband and his family members as parties had consciously entered into compromise to resume peaceful conjugal life instead of carrying out an acrimonious and vengeful litigation against each other. That is why Title Matrimonial Suit No. 06/2006 was also withdrawn by the respondent-husband. However, the acquittal in B.S City P.S. Case No. 35/06, in such circumstances, would not lead to an inference of false accusation by the wife against her husband and family members . It is also undisputable that in case fresh instances of cruelty in marriage within 7 years is meted to the wife she is not precluded from instituting a criminal case against the husband and other family members liable for it, if sufficient cause of action is made out, and ingredients of the offence are made out. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the criminal case bearing no. B.S.City P.S. Case No. 477/07 (G.R. Case No. 1718/2007) was pending at the time of adjudication of the matrimonial suit and no inference of cruelty could be drawn against the appellant-wife for the purposes of granting a decree of divorce. Learned counsel for the appellant however fairly submits that after the suit was decreed and the marriage was dissolved, appellant lost interest in pursuing 6. the criminal case against the respondent-husband and as a result respondent has been acquitted of the charges by a judgment dated 9 th May, 2018 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in T.R. No. 45 of 2018 (G.R. No 1718 of 2007). This acquittal is a subsequent development but in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent could not take an advantage thereof to defend the impugned judgment of divorce granted on the plea of irretrievable break down of marriage. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to the evidence on record and in particular of the defendant-wife/appellant herein to dislodge any impression of desertion on her behalf from the matrimonial house. Rather, he has tried to substantiate the grounds of challenge by asserting that the sustained cruelty perpetrated upon the appellant gave a reasonable cause to her to stay away from the matrimonial home. Therefore, the twin ingredients of desertion i.e. animus deserendi and physical desertion without any reasonable cause is not made out against her. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to grant permanent alimony to the appellant-wife. Learned Family Court has failed to hold that she has tried to take advantage of her own wrong and is disentitled to any maintenance or permanent alimony. As a matter of fact, the conclusions drawn by the learned Family Court to Issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 are to the effect that both the parties have deserted each other since year, 2005 i.e., more than 5 years. In such a case when the respondent-husband is admittedly working as a driver and earning person, whereas the appellant is a lady without independent source of income, interest of justice required that a decent lump sum amount in the nature of permanent alimony should be awarded in her favour, otherwise she could not maintain herself and would be rendered destitute. Learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded in the alternative that in case this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment then, a permanent alimony be awarded in favour of the appellant to meet the ends of justice.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has stoutly defended the findings recorded in the impugned judgment. She has taken us to the pleadings of the rival parties and the evidence adduced on their behalf. She has pointed out to certain conspicuous facts, which have been borne out from the pleadings and are easily discernible from the evidence of 7. the parties. It is submitted that the appellant-wife was a quarrel some lady having active support of her mother, a member of the political party and was disinterested in maintaining conjugal life with the respondent. She used to indulge in irresponsible behavior. She was not answerable to anyone and even failed to cook food and provide the respondent with the conjugal bliss. As a matter of fact, no issue were born out of the wed lock because of her attitude and non-cooperative behavior. It is also submitted that the appellant instituted a false case under Section 498A of I.P.C against the respondent and her family members and later on failed to substantiate the allegations when the illegal demands made by her and her father were met as a result of such coercion. Though, she examined herself as a witness in the first F.I.R bearing G.R. No. 163 of 2006, T.R. No. 1223 of 2006 and had also stated in her examination-in-chief that when she went to her in-laws' house after marriage the accused persons tried to project her as an insane person and create a certificate of mental unsoundness to inflict cruelty upon her and also demanded Rs. 60,000/- but the credibility of the appellant as a witness in the criminal case was in serious doubt since during her cross-examination she accepted that she could not name any of the accused persons, who had indulged in demand of dowry or had tortured her. It is clear from such statement of the appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate that she had falsely made the accusation and later resiled from it on fulfillment of the demands made by her and her father i.e., Rs. 1 Lac in cash and certain ornaments were taken back.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband further submits that even after the respondent went to Patna by moving out of his paternal house in order to by peace with the appellant, she did not change her behavior during their stay at Patna. As a matter of fact, when he met with a serious accident and suffered fracture of waist bone and right leg his father had to bring him to Bokaro to be treated at Bokaro General Hospital. During midst of the treatment, there were repeated deliberate disturbances created by her father and the appellant also suddenly left from the hospital leaving the respondent on the death bed with no one to attend except his father and his family members. In fact, his father lodged informatory petition before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bokaro stating these facts which have been marked as Ext.-2 dated 2nd April, 2007. The respondent had met with an accident on 9th March, 2007 and was under treatment at 8. B.G.H, Hospital, Bokaro during that period. It has been stated by O.P. W. No. 1, (father of the appellant) that after the accident petitioner-husband was unable to move and he was hospitalized for a month and he could not say when he was released from hospital. O.P.W. No. 2 has clearly stated in para-18 of his examination-in-chief that he had stated all what were told to him by defendant wife. It is also evident from the deposition of O.P.W No-4 that after the respondent recovered from his fracture and was brought to his house from the hospital, she instituted another criminal case bearing B.S. City P.S. Case No. 447 of 2007 under Section 498A IPC. She has not been able to say as to after how many days of her return to the house of respondent husband she filed the case. Evidently, respondent was not in a position to inflict physical or mental torture or cruelty upon the appellant as he was himself recovering from a serious fracture which had affected his physical movements.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn support from the judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in G.R. No. 1718 of 2007 (T.R. No. 45 of 2018) dated 9 th May, 2018. A copy of judgment has been taken out from the N.J.D.G site and kept on record. It is submitted that the entire prosecution case has been found to be doubtful regarding the factum of occurrence as also the complicity of the accused persons i.e., respondent herein her husband. As a result, it has been held that the prosecution has failed to bring the charges against him beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt which warrants his acquittal. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Srinivas Vs. K. Sunita reported in (2014) 16 SCC 34 paragraphs 4 and 5 in support of her submission that institution of a false complaint intentionally and cause an incarceration of the respondent-husband would unquestionably constitute cruelty as postulated in Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. In the present case, twice such a false accusation has been made. In the first instance respondent father was taken into custody and only after the meeting the illegal demands of the appellant and her father, the case ended in acquittal due to lack of prosecution on the part of the appellant herein.
14. Appellant did not relent even thereafter and instituted second F.I.R making similar allegations of cruelty under Section 498A of IPC which has also ended up in acquittal. It is submitted that in those 9. circumstances, this Court in appeal is entitled to take into account that subsequent development to uphold the decree of divorce even if the impugned judgment and decree of divorce on the grounds of irretrievable break down of marriage may not be sustainable under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. Learned counsel for the respondent however has laboured to convince the Court that any alimony in such circumstances should not be awarded in favour of the appellant since there are insufficient materials on record to substantiate the claim. Appellant had also not taken any such plea before the learned Family Court. She submits, on the other hand, that the appellant has been awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- vide order dated 15th December, 2015 passed in M.P. Case No. 88 of 2014 by the Court of learned Principal District-cum-Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon a decision of this Court rendered by a Division Bench presided over by one of us (Aparesh Kumar Singh,J) in appeal from Original Decree No. 80 of 2017 (DB) dated 14th August, 2018 in the case of Smt. Rupa Pal Vs. Sanjay Pal. She submits that this Court despite such a prayer at the appellate stage did not deem it proper to award permanent alimony in the absence of sufficient material evidence on record to sustain the plea. The appellant was relegated to pursue such a claim under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the concerned learned Family Court. On the basis of these submissions and the grounds urged, learned counsel for the respondent has pleaded for dismissal of the appeal.
15. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the materials on record including the evidence adduced by the parties before the learned Family Court. We have also perused the impugned judgment and taken note of the judgment dated 9th May, 2018 rendered by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Bokaro in G.R. No. 1718 of 2007, T.R. No. 45 of 2018 in the case of State (through Meera Singh) Vs. Ran Vijay Singh.
16. From the rival pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record as narrated hereinabove, we find that learned Family Court was persuaded to decree the suit instituted by the respondent herein by granting divorce on the grounds of irretrievable break down of marriage in answer to Issue Nos. 3, 4 and 5 which related to issues of cruelty and desertion on the part of the wife and also the issue of cruelty by the petitioner-husband and 10. his family members on the respondents in connection with demand of dowry. From the conspectus of the materials on record, it is evident that the marriage between the parties solemnized on 8th June, 2003 did not prosper and remain fractured due to marital discord. Parties have made accusation against each other in their pleadings and tried to substantiate it through evidence adduced on their behalf both oral and documentary. However, few facts which are undeniable also point out unerringly against the appellant- wife. On allegations of cruelty in marriage she instituted B.S. City P.S. Case No. 35/06 under Section 498A of the I.P.C against the respondent and his family members. The father of the respondent was also sent to jail in that case. Though, parties allege against each other that there was no unlawful agreement or exchange or meeting of illegal demands to compromise the case, but it is true that a compromise petition was filed on a facile plea that the appellant wanted to resume conjugal life in a peaceful and harmonious atmosphere with her husband and did not want to prosecute the case. Offences under Section 498A of IPC are non-compoundable. However, judgment in the said case which has been adduced as Ext.-2 by the respondent-husband, shows that it ended up in acquittal since the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing enough evidence. Appellant had appeared as a witness and in her examination-in-chief made categorical assertion that when she went to the matrimonial home after marriage, the accused persons tried to project her as insane person and created a false certificate of unsoundness of mind. They also demanded Rs. 60,000/- as dowry. However, during her cross- examination, she completely resiled from her statement and surprisingly failed to name any of the accused persons having indulged in cruelty or such demand. Her credibility as a witness was impeached, in such circumstances. It is evident and not denied by the appellant in her testimony also that respondent met with an accident at Patna and was taken to Bokaro for treatment at Bokaro General Hospital for fracture of his waist bone and right leg. He remained in indoor treatment. An informatory petition was filed by respondent's father on 2nd April, 2007 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chas making allegations of sudden departure by the appellant from the side of her husband undergoing treatment without any plausible cause. Further the appellant, in her deposition has indicated that after release of her husband, she went to the matrimonial house and thereafter 11. another criminal case was instituted against her husband and other family members under Section 498A of IPC being Bokaro P.S. Case no. 477 of 2007 (G.R. No. 1718 of 2007). However, charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent only leaving his other family members. Though, the instant case was pending trial when the matrimonial suit was decided by the learned Family Court, Bokaro but during pendency of this appeal, the trial has concluded in the acquittal of the respondent husband herein. From the judgment dated 9th May, 2018 rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, it appears that prosecution case was found to be doubtful as regards the factum of the occurrence and also the complicity of the accused persons in the alleged offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. Learned trial court therefore held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the husband beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. This being a pronouncement of a competent court of criminal jurisdiction in a prosecution launched by the appellant against her husband respondent herein and having direct co-relation to the issue in controversy between the parties i.e., cruelty in terms of Section 13(1) (i-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955, we can take due judicial notice of this development while deciding the matrimonial appeal between the same parties. Evidently, hurling of false accusation which has ended in acquittal of the respondent amounts to cruelty against the husband within the meaning of Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act,1955, as has been held in the case of K.Srinivas (supra). As such, we are satisfied that the decree of divorce granted in favour of the respondent can be sustained on the grounds of cruelty in terms of Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act, 1955, though we are of the firm opinion that the findings of the learned Family Court to decree the suit on the grounds of irretrievable break down of marriage are not made out in terms of Section 13 of the Act. No such power is conferred upon the Family Court to conjure up a ground un-recognized in law.
17. From the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, it is also evident that there are no emotional ties left between the parties as admittedly they have been living in separation since 2008 and there are no offspring born out of the marriage which lasted for about 5 years between them. Keeping alive a legal tie of matrimonial relationship in such a state of facts and circumstances would neither be in the interest of the appellant- wife nor the respondent husband. It would amount to unnecessarily keeping 12. the marriage alive when there are no love or affection left between the parties.
18. A plea for grant of permanent alimony has been raised before us in this appeal on behalf of the appellant-wife. From the rival pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record, it is not a disputed position that respondent is working as driver and is expected to have a reasonable income therefrom. It is also undeniable that the appellant is a lady without any independent source of income and might be wholly dependent on her parents who may not in a position to sustain her needs for long. A divorced wife in such circumstances cannot be left destitute in the society. We find from the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent that appellant was awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month in the year 2015. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated, on instruction, that she is not getting that maintenance also. We are not sure whether any execution case has been filed by the appellant for enforcement of order of maintenance. On the part of the respondent, reliance has been placed upon a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Rupa Pal vs. Sanjay Pal (supra). From perusal of the judgment, rendered by a coordinate Bench, of which one of us (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) was a member, it is apparent that the wife was getting a maintenance @ 6,000/- per month in the said case, whereas the status or occupation of the husband was not evident from the materials on record in that case. This Court, in such circumstances was of the opinion that the appellant-wife should approach the concerned Family Court for grant of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Facts of the instant case are distinguishable as in the present case, the husband is working as a driver whereas the wife is a lady without any independent source of income and only a maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month has been awarded which in the present times would not be sufficient to take care of her needs. It can be safely assumed given the scale of minimum wages entitled to skilled workman that the respondent would be earning in the range of Rs. 15,000/- to 25,000/- per month. In such circumstances, ends of justice would be met if a permanent alimony of Rs. 3 Lacks is awarded in favour of the appellant. However, on grant of such alimony and its payment within a period of 3 months from today, the monthly maintenance amount awarded in her favour @ Rs. 2,000/- by learned District & Sessions Judge-cum-Designated Family Court, Bokaro 13. passed in M.P. Case No. 88 of 2014 vide order dated 15 th December, 2015 shall cease to be operative.
19. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent of award of permanent alimony in favour of the appellant wife which upholding the decree of divorce though for different reasons which we have recorded hereinabove. Decree accordingly.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) (Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 21st January, 2020 JK/NAFR