Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Ground has been taken by the appellant that the marriage has been solemnized by the parents of the respondent-wife by concealing the fact that the respondent-wife is suffering from Polio, which according to learned counsel for the appellant is sufficient ground to prove the element of cruelty. But the same has not been taken in right perspective by the learned Family Court and hence the present appeal. Submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent:

5. While on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- wife has submitted that it is unacceptable that the wife, a human, is suffering from Polio can hide that disease rather Polio is such a disease, which is apparent. It has been contended that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground of cruelty merely because the wife was suffering from Polio. Hence the said ground has been taken as a ground for divorce. It has come in the evidence that she has been subjected to torture on the ground that she is suffering from Polio. It has been contended that the learned Family Judge after taking into consideration the aforesaid fact is correct in declining to dissolve the marriage on the ground of physical ailment.

PW-3, Raghunandan Kumar is plaintiff himself has stated in his evidence in para 1and 2 that his marriage was solemnized with the defendant on 13.07.2016 as per the Hindu Rites and customs and after marriage, the defendant came to her matrimonial house. In para 3 he has further stated that from the first day of marriage, the defendant started behaving with unbearable cruelty with him, whenever he wants to talk with her, she totally refused to talk with him. He further stated that the reason behind this is that the defendant did not want to marry with him as he is an unemployed person, but her parents solemnised her marriage with him by force and without her consent and also threaten her of dire consequences. He further stated that from the second day of her marriage, she washed her vermilion (Sindur) from her head. In para 4 he has stated that just after marriage when defendant came to his home he came to know that she is handicapped and her right leg is totally polio affected and she is unable to move freely and cannot to do normal routine works. This fact was not disclosed by the parents of the defendant prior to the marriage and he is under mental torture. He further stated in para 6 that he is a graduate and he is in preparation of competitive examinations, but now his career is in danger of being ruined in the above circumstances 2025:JHHC:16141-DB and mental torture by the Defendant. In para 7 he has stated that he tried to establish physical relation as husband and she flatly refused which caused mental torture. He has further stated that when he informed and complained to his father-in-law and brother-in-law, they came to his house and took the defendant with them in 13-14 days of his marriage with all ornaments, clothes and other articles and while they were going to their village, they threatened that if he try to come to his sasural, they will implicate him and his family members in a false criminal case. He further stated that since 27.07.2016, the defendant is residing in her naihar. During cross examination, in paras 12 and 13 he has stated that he is a Graduate and preparing for competitive examinations and he visited to his sasural three times for taking his wife. In para 14 and 15 he has admitted that he could not went to see the defendant Anjani Kumari prior to his marriage but his father and mother went to see the defendant and like her after negotiation, marriage took place. He further stated in para 17 that he also does not like her as from the first day of his marriage, she misbehaved with him. In para 18 plaintiff refused to keep defendant as wife in spite of that defendant is ready to reside with him as wife. In para 19 and 20 he has admitted that there is no consultation of doctor for treatment of polio of his wife defendant and no panchayati was called for. In para 22 he denied that he solemnized second marriage with the daughter of Manoj Rai and also denied for demand of dowry and ousted his wife/defendant. In para 25 he has denied that it is not a fact that second day of his marriage, he knows that defendant is polio affected, so he does not want keep her.

20. Further ground has been taken about suppression of fact of Polio in the right leg at the time of solemnization of marriage also found not be substantiated, since, Polio in the right leg of the respondent wife is the admitted fact herein. The said fact could have been considered by the husband prior to solemnization of marriage but once the marriage has been solemnized then it is understood that 2025:JHHC:16141-DB solemnization of marriage must have been done only after observing the lady i.e., respondent wife and further the suffering from Polio in the right leg cannot be suppressed as has been stated by the husband as it would be apparent when the person suffering from polio walks, which is visible by the naked eye. However, if the suffering of Polio in on any hand, that could have been concealed.

"I have discussed the evidence of Husband/Petitioner as PW 3, it deposed that respondent refused to reside with him only 14 days and also refused to cohabitation with him even refused to talk with the petitioner/husband but he admitted in his cross-examination para 12 and 13 that he was visited to his sasural for taking his wife which shows that there is cordial relation in between the parties. So far the physical condition of respondent is concerned as alleged suffering from Polio in her right leg and unable to do daily routine work, this court noticed that during the recording of the evidence and also subsequent date fixed for hearing/Argument of the suit the respondent Anjani Kumari present before the court and it was notice that she/wife is having average height and there is no any crippling walk noticed by the court. Further that the respondent walked before the court in very discipline manner and there is very slight cripple in her right leg, which appears when watch her very carefully. The main allegation of the plaintiff is that due to Polio in her right leg and unable to do any work, but court was found that she is able to do her own work in natural way. Therefore, the court finds that the allegation against the respondent is suffering from Polio in her right leg and unable to do daily routine work is 2025:JHHC:16141-DB found no force to relay."