Jharkhand High Court
Vikram Kumar vs Reshma Kumari on 27 February, 2024
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 14 of 2020
----
Vikram Kumar, Son of Bhola Prasad Barnwal, Resident of 39, 3rd Main, 18th Cross, Vigneshwara Layout, P.O. & P.S. Hoysala Nagar, Ramurthy Nagar, Bangalore-560016. .....Appellant Versus Reshma Kumari, Wife of Vikram Kumar, C/o Shyam Bhandar Sadar Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro, Jharkhand-827013. ....Respondent
--------
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhagat, Advocate
For the Respondent :Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
-------
13/27/02/2024 Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2019 (decree signed on 6.1.2020) passed by Shri Peeyush Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No.142 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent has been dismissed.
3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned court below.
4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had preferred a suit under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (respondent herein also), in which inter alia it has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 4.12.2011 at Isri Bazar, Giridih. The petitioner at the time of his marriage was working as a Software Engineer in Bangalore whereas the respondent was a graduate. After marriage, the petitioner and the respondent started residing in No. 502 Vijay Mansion, First Main Pai Layout, Bangaloe from where they shifted to another accommodation in the month of June, 2013 where they last resided together. After a few months, the behaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner changed and the petitioner was mentally and physically tortured and the respondent also demanded to have unnatural sex with the petitioner. The respondent apart from calling derogatory names to the petitioner had also disrespected and 2 F.A. No. 14 of 2020 humiliated the parents of the petitioner who resides at Jharkhand and the conduct of the respondent towards the petitioner continued till the respondent deserted the petitioner on 15.11.2013. In the month of June, 2012 during the occasion of Holi the respondent had left her matrimonial house along with all gold jewelleries given to her by the petitioner at the time of marriage and after two months she returned back sans the jewellery. After keeping the jewellery at her parents house she started demanding costly gold jewellery from the petitioner which was beyond the means of the petitioner. It has been stated that the respondent had left her matrimonial house on 13.12.2013 for her parents house on which date the petitioner suffered a fracture injury but despite repeated efforts the respondent neither enquired about the wellbeing of the petitioner nor did she come to Bangalore to look after the petitioner. The petitioner was, in the circumstances, constrained to send a legal notice to the respondent calling upon her to return to her matrimonial house. Instead of returning to Bangalore the respondent organized a Panchayat through Barnwal Yuvak Sangh which the petitioner was forced to attend on 11.3.2013. The Panchayat had thereafter given its verdict with direction to both the sides. The respondent and her family members later on forcibly got inserted a line to the effect that the petitioner side were found guilty. In terms of the conditions agreed upon by the parties, the petitioner had gone to Chas and brought back the respondent to her matrimonial house from where they shifted to another accommodation in the month of June, 2013. It has been stated that the respondent and her family members had tried to implicate the petitioner in false cases but their endeavour failed and the torture upon the petitioner continued relentlessly. It has further been stated that on 15.9.2013, the respondent had physically assaulted the petitioner and had also bitten him on the right hand for which he had to be given tetanus injection and other medicines. It has further been stated that the respondent had gleaned information from the petitioner's phone without his knowledge and started calling his colleagues and had spoken ill about the character of the petitioner. On account of the respondent and her brothers entering the work place of the petitioner, the petitioner was suspended by his employer for a period of two months. During the period of suspension the respondent started splurging money in expensive cloths, beauty parlors etc. In November, 2013, the respondent without informing the petitioner had left for the railway station and on being informed by the landlord the petitioner 3 F.A. No. 14 of 2020 rushed to the railway station where he located the respondent along with her family members. The petitioner had helped the respondent with the luggage and also had taken pains to make her journey comfortable. After arriving at her parents place the respondent had lodged a false criminal case against the petitioner and his family members being FIR 379/2013 under sections 498A/34 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The news of lodging the FIR was also published in the newspaper Prabhat Khabar. The petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail and during mediation the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner was granted bail on 27.1.2014 and after being released on bail the petitioner came back to Bangalore where he is living alone and he had also lost his job. It has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has broken down irretrievably and there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties.
5. The respondent on being noticed had filed her written statement in which the allegations leveled against her have been denied. It has been stated that from the first day of marriage, the petitioner and his family members had demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as additional dowry. It was the petitioner who was forcing the respondent to indulge in unnatural sex. The respondent has also stated about the Panchayat of the Barnwal Committee held on 11.3.2013 wherein it was concluded that the fault lies with the petitioner. It has been stated that the family members of the petitioner used to frequent the matrimonial house of the respondent with demand of additional dowry. The allegations made by the respondent in the FIR against the petitioner and his family members are all true.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed for adjudication.
(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
(ii) Whether the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit?
(iii) Whether the respondent (wife) committed/subjected to cruelty against the petitioner (husband) after marriage and whether the petitioner (husband) is entitled to get a decree of dissolution of marriage on the basis of cruelty under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
(iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
7. The petitioner has examined as many as four witnesses in support of 4 F.A. No. 14 of 2020 his case.
P.W-1-Vikram Kumar is the petitioner who has stated about solemnization of his marriage with the respondent on 4.12.2011 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and after marriage he had taken the bride to Bangalore. The respondent after a few months changed her behavior towards the petitioner and started mental and physical torture upon him. The brother of the respondent always used to go to Isri Bazar and heaped abuses upon his parents. In March, 2012 during Holi the respondent had left her parents place along with her jewelleries but when she returned back after two months she did not bring the jewelleries with her. He has stated that on 13.2.2013 the respondent had left his house without seeking his permission and in the meantime he suffered a fracture injury on his wrist due to an accident but in spite of knowing the said fact the respondent did not return rather sent a legal notice through her Advocate. The respondent had called for a Panchayat which was conducted by the Barnwal community on 11.3.2013 in which several allegations were leveled against him by the respondent and it was decided that the family members of the respondent and his family members would not visit his house. The respondent had however tampered with the report of the Panchayat. The respondent had continued with her behaviour of hurling abuses and torturing him in various ways. On 15.9.2023, the respondent had assaulted him as a result of which he had suffered injuries on his right hand and he had to undergo treatment at Sir C.V. Raman Hospital. He has stated that in June, 2013, the respondent and her brother created a scene at his work place and due to which he had to wash his hands off his job. The respondent had instituted a false criminal case against him at Chas Police Station. He has stated that he had made an application for anticipatory bail which was sent for mediation but prior to holding of the mediation he was arrested by the police.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that three cases are going on between him and the respondent. Before his marriage, he was engaged to another woman from Patna but the engagement broke off. After the Panchayat was held he and the respondent had gone back to Bangalore. The respondent had stayed with him for about two years. He has deposed that he had not lodged any complaint to the police regarding the alleged mental and physical torture he had undergone at the hands of the respondent. He does not want to keep his wife even if she expresses her desire to stay with him.
5 F.A. No. 14 of 2020P.W-2-Bhola Prasad Barnwal is the father of the petitioner who in his sworn statement has reiterated what has been stated by P.W-1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that there are four cases pending between the parties out of which three cases have been instituted by the respondent. His younger son Chetan Kumar stays with the petitioner at Bangalore. After the Panchayati was held the respondent was taken by the petitioner from Chas to Bangalore where both stayed together for six months. He had stayed at his sons place for 4-5 days after one year of the marriage and the respondent used to cook and he was treated well by the petitioner and the respondent. He had not made any complaints anywhere regarding the abuses hurled upon him by Rohit, the brother of the respondent. The petitioner does not want to keep the respondent with him in any condition.
P.W-3-Chetan Kumar is the brother of the petitioner who has stated in similar terms to that of the sworn statement of P.W-1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that after marriage, the petitioner and the respondent went to Bangalore where he was staying with his brother. At the time of marriage, his sister was doing her M.B.A from M.S. Ramaiya College, Bangalore. After the marriage, his mother had come to Bangalore and stayed for a few days after which the respondent went to her parental place at Bokaro in March, 2012. He was present in the meeting of the Barnwal Samaj Sangh. He was not a signatory to the document prepared at the meeting of Barnwal Samaj Sangh. He has deposed that the petitioner had confided in him about the respondent forcing the petitioner to have unnatural sex with him. They had not filed any case with respect to the tampering with the document prepared at the Panchayat.
P.W-4-Kailash Prasad Barnwal has reiterated the sworn statements of P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-3.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the petitioner is his nephew. He had never gone to the flat of the petitioner at Bangalore. He has heard about the incident between the petitioner and the respondent which occurred at Bangalore.
8. The respondent has examined three witnesses in support of her case including herself.
R.W-1-Rohit Kumar is the brother of the respondent who has stated about the solemnization of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on 4.12.2011 and the demand of Rs.10,00,000/- made at the 6 F.A. No. 14 of 2020 instance of the petitioner and his family members after the respondent started living with the petitioner at Bangalore. Due to such demand, the respondent was subjected to mental and physical torture and on coming to know of the said fact he and his family members had gone to Bangalore but he was abused and the respondent was sent back with him to Bokaro. Since there appeared to be a possibility of resolving the issue a Panchayati was called by his father on 11.3.2013 in which the Panchayat decided that the petitioner should keep the respondent with him and consequent to such decision, the respondent was taken to Bangalore by the petitioner. After a few days, the petitioner and his brother brutally assaulted the respondent who somehow managed to escape and come back to Bokaro. She was given treatment at Bokaro by Dr. Sangeeta Kumari. Since there was an incessant demand of dowry and the petitioner refused to keep the respondent with him till the demands are fulfilled the respondent did not have any option but to lodge a criminal case under section 498A 323/34 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act which was registered as Chas P.S. Case No. 379/13. In spite of institution of the criminal case the petitioner and his family members refused to keep her till the demands are made.
In cross-examination he has deposed that after 4-5 days apart from the petitioner and the respondent the brother and sister of the petitioner had also gone to Bangalore. Before marriage, the father of the respondent had given Rs.10,00,000/-to the family members of the petitioner. He had come to know about the torture committed upon the respondent at Bangalore through telephone. In the year 2012 when he had gone to Bangalore, the brother of the petitioner-Chetan Kumar and his sister Sakchi Priya were staying with the petitioner and on their advice he had brought the respondent with him to Chas. After the respondent came back a Panchayati was held on 13.3.2013 in which he was also present. He has deposed that the statement of the respondent was recorded by the members of the Mahila Samiti as well as the Panchayat but in the document prepared at the Panchayat there was no signature of the members of the Mahila Samiti. In the Panchayat, a decision was taken that the brother and sister of the petitioner should stay separate from the petitioner.
R.W-2-Raj Kumar is acquainted with both the sides and he has stated that after marriage the respondent was subjected to mental and physical torture due to the non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry. The petitioner and his family members had demanded Rs.10,00,000/-as dowry. He was present 7 F.A. No. 14 of 2020 in the Panchayat which had directed the petitioner to keep the respondent with him pursuant to which the petitioner had taken with him the respondent to Bangalore. However, after a few days, she was brutally assaulted and the respondent somehow managed to save herself and come back to Bokaro where she was treated by Dr. Sangeeta Kumari. The respondent had instituted a case of dowry against the petitioner and his family members in Chas P.S. No. 379 of 2013. The respondent is still desirous of restoring marital ties with the petitioner.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he is a friend of the brother of the respondent. The respondent is staying separate from the petitioner since the year 2013 as disclosed to him by the father of the respondent. He had come to know from the brother of the respondent regarding demand of additional dowry and torture committed by the inlaws upon the respondent. It was Rohit Kumar who had disclosed to him about the torture committed by the petitioner and his family members upon the respondent and the institution of a case by the respondent against them at Chas P.S. R.W-3-Reshma Kumari is the respondent who has stated about solemnization of her marriage with the petitioner on 4.12.2011 and after a few days of marriage she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the petitioner and his family members. After a few days of marriage she had gone to Bangalore with the petitioner after which a demand was made by the petitioner and his family members of Rs.10,00,000/-for purchasing a Flat and this was the cause of mental and physical torture inflicted upon her. When this fact was intimated to her family members, her brother Rohit had come to Bangalore where she and her brother were abused by the petitioner and his family members which forced her to come back to Bokaro along with her brother. Finding no option her father had called a Panchayat on 11.3.2013 at the permanent address of the petitioner at Isri wherein the Panchayat gave its decision directing the petitioner to keep the respondent with him and consequent thereto the petitioner had taken the respondent to Bangalore. However, after a few days she was subjected to physical torture by the petitioner and his family members as a result of which she could somehow manage to come back to Bokaro where she got herself treated by Dr. Sangeeta Kumari. Since in spite of making efforts to reconcile the issue the attitude of the petitioner and his family members regarding demand of dowry was unrelenting. She was left with no option but to lodge an FIR in Chas P.S. Case No. 379/13 under Section 498A 323/34 IPC and Section ¾ 8 F.A. No. 14 of 2020 of Dowry Prohibition Act. She had always treated the petitioner and his family members with full honor and dignity but she was never shown the respect a daughter in law deserves. She was also constrained to institute a case of maintenance in which an ex parte order was passed by the Court awarding Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance and since the petitioner had failed to make payment of maintenance warrant was issued against him and subsequent thereto the petitioner had appeared before the Family Court. She has stated that she had also filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance amount wherein vide order dated 7.2.2019 the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.13,000/- per month but the petitioner is making payment of only Rs.5,000/-per month. She had not cast any aspersions against the character of the petitioner and is still ready and willing to lead a matrimonial relationship with him. On account of the torture committed upon her by her inlaws she has been forced to stay at her parental house at Chas since 15.11.2013.
In cross-examination she has deposed that her husband gives Rs.5,000/-to her every month towards her maintenance. She does not remember the date when the dowry was demanded from her by the petitioner and her inlaws and she also does not remember the date when she had informed her father regarding the demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- made from her. She had got her injury treated by a doctor at Bangalore also but she does not know the name of the doctor. When she had appeared in the Mediation Centre she came to know that the petitioner has been arrested.
9. It has been submitted by Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant that the respondent has given out several instances which would clearly signify about the torture committed by the respondent upon the petitioner. It has been submitted that the findings recorded by the learned court below was prejudicial as only consideration made was to the evidence of the father of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the evidence of the petitioner (P.W-1) wherein the petitioner has denied that he had subjected the respondent to torture on account of non fulfilment of the demand of dowry. He had in his legal notice to the respondent indicated his desire to keep the respondent with him. Mr. Prasad has also referred to the evidence of P.W-2 who is the father of the petitioner and who has stated that he had heard that during Holi in the year 2012 the respondent had left her matrimonial house with her jewellery and he has also stated about being properly treated by the respondent, when he had 9 F.A. No. 14 of 2020 gone to Bangalore after marriage and these facts weighed heavily in the mind of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro while dismissing the suit. It has been submitted that both the parties are staying separate since 2013 and there is no chance of reconciliation as the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
10. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the evidence of the witnesses would reveal that it was the respondent who was subjected to brutality on account of non fulfilment of the incessant demand of dowry made from the side of the petitioner and his family members. It has been submitted that even the decision of the Panchayat was not adhered to as though the respondent was taken by the petitioner to Bangalore but after a few days she was once again subjected to torture, after which she somehow managed to come back to Bokaro. The respondent was all along willing to stay with the petitioner but it was the petitioner who was least interested to keep her with him. According to Mr. Sinha the learned Principal Judge, Family Court had rightly dismissed the suit preferred by the petitioner after appreciating the evidence on record.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Lower Court Records.
12. Issue No. (iii) is the only issue of consequence in the present case as it relates to the question of cruelty which the petitioner has alleged against the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 4.2.2011 and after a few days of marriage the petitioner and the respondent started staying at Bangalore which was the work place of the petitioner. It appears that after a few days, fissures developed in their relationship and its snowballed into a major dispute for which a Panchayati was held but the relationship could never be stitched together and it is an admitted position as well that both are residing separately since the year 2013. The pleadings of the parties and their evidence are replete with allegations and counter allegations and it is to be deciphered as to whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce or not.
13. The evidence of the petitioner (P.W-1) is primarily focused on the abuse and assault committed by the respondent upon the petitioner, for which the petitioner had to be treated by a doctor. During the Holi festival in the year 2012 she had left Bangalore along with jewelleries for her parental 10 F.A. No. 14 of 2020 house but she came back empty handed. Due to the conduct of the respondent and her brother at the work place of the petitioner he had to lose his job. Mention has also been made about a false criminal case instituted against him and his family members by the respondent in which he had to remain in custody for sometime. The allegations levelled by the petitioner have however been denied by the respondent who has made some counter allegations against the petitioner. The dispute between the parties seems to have first been referred to the Panchayat and though the Panchayat document was not brought on record but what would transpire from the evidence of the witnesses, in the Panchayat a decision was taken that the petitioner and the respondent would stay together and pursuant to the same the respondent was taken to Bangalore by the petitioner. Though the petitioner has alleged tampering with the Panchayat document but no cognizance can be taken of the same in absence of the Panchayat document and in absence of any assertion by the petitioner regarding complaints made to the Panchayat with respect to such tampering. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court below had overtly relied upon the evidence of P.W-2 which to a certain extent is correct but at the same time the evidence of P.W-2 cannot be lost sight of in the entire conspectus of the case and which reveals about the conduct of the respondent towards P.W-2 which was very cordial during the time P.W-2 had stayed for a few days at Bangalore. He has not spewed vitriol at the respondent in his evidence. The evidence of P.W-3 and P.W-4 mostly seems to be hearsay in nature though P.W-3 being the brother of the petitioner used to stay with him. On the other hand the evidence of the witnesses of the respondent appears to be unambiguous and consistent with respect to the torture committed by the petitioner upon the respondent which ultimately led to institution of a First Information Report.
14. The allegation against the petitioner and his family members were found to be true resulting in submission of chargesheet and as per Ext-A/2 charge has also been framed. Though both the petitioner and the respondent have exhibited medical documents but none of the said documents subscribe to the allegations made by them. The petitioner has not brought on record any document indicating his dismissal from service though as per the petitioner it was on account of the scene created at his work place by the respondent and his brother such dismissal had occurred. The petitioner has failed to prove his case on the ground of cruelty; rather 11 F.A. No. 14 of 2020 the factual aspects would reveal to the contrary. Though we are aware about the fact that the petitioner and the respondent are staying separate for more than a decade but that would not be construed to be an irretrievable break down of marriage specially in the context of the willingness shown by the respondent in restoring marital ties with the petitioner and more so in the absence of any provisions thereto in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
15. We , therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove do not find any reason to cause interference with the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2019 (decree signed on 6.1.2020) passed by Shri Peeyush Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No.142 of 2017 and consequently we dismiss this appeal.
( Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) ( Deepak Roshan, J) Rakesh/-