Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)
Sumit Kumar vs Surendra Kumar And on 12 July, 2018 cites

Ranjita Gupta Alias Ranjita Devi vs Sumit Kumar on 21 April, 2014

She stated having established physical relationship as husband and wife with the petitioner during her stay in the matrimonial home. She further stated that her husband had filed xerox copy of agreement revealing her marriage with Surendra which is also forged and fabricated and had been created for obtaining divorce. Agreement of marriage had not been brought in original and got proved by the competent witnesses. Learned Family Court took into note this fact and also held that had the original agreement been proved the onus would have shifted upon the respondent to explain it. The evidence on record brought by the respondent further showed that the father of the respondent filed G. R. Case No. 170 of 2012 under Sections 452,468,384,120B of Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Garhwa P. S. Case No. 30 of 2012 against 9. Surendra Kumar which arose out of one Complaint Case No. C-73/12 in which the affidavit was filed by Anju Devi marked as Ext.-A. Copy of F.I.R was marked as Ext.-B vide Para-31 of her evidence. Respondent in her suit for restitution of conjugal rights had admitted that petitioner was blackmailing her father by preparing a forged document of marriage. In Para-23 she had stated that her brother-in-law Surendra and his wife Anju Devi last visited her father's house in 2006. He was trying to extort money from her father. She denied that since before her marriage with the petitioner, Surendra was making claim of his marriage with her and that she incurred marriage with petitioner by concealing these facts. Learned Family Court took her denial in the light of the documents (Exts. A & C) both. There was no mention of the alleged agreement of Court Marriage or illicit relationship between the respondent and Surendra. Ext.-C was in connection with offence dated 22nd January, 2012 allegedly committed by father of the respondent. Respondent had also alleged collusion between the petitioner and brother-in-law Surendra by creating forged document to get a divorce. All these material evidence on record point out to a definite conclusion that serious allegation of adultery made by the husband-petitioner had not at all been established by any cogent evidence. The allegation of adultery or illicit relationship of the respondent prior to her marriage with her brother-in-law where of serious nature and would amount to casting a stigma upon the respondent for all times to come, if proved. Such allegations are easily made than proved. Learned Family Court has rightly not found any material evidence on the part of the petitioner to substantiate such a serious allegation. Marriage between the parties could not have been dissolved on such allegation alone. Appellant had also failed to establish that his marriage with respondent was arrived at by practising deception upon him.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - D N Upadhyay - Full Document
1   2 Next