IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 187 of 2010
Smt. Sheela Devi …. … Appellant
Dr. Braj Bhushan Singh … … Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA,HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. S.N. PATHAK
For a Appellant : Mrs. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
For a Respondent : Mr.S.K. Murari, Advocate.
1. Heard a schooled warn for a appellant and schooled warn for a respondent.
The appellant mother is depressed by a ex-parte direct of divorce upheld conflicting her, by Judgment and Decree antiquated 22.05.2010, by a Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau during Daltonganj, in Matrimonical Case No. 28 of 2009.
It might be settled that this interest also was filed after lavish check of 101 days, that was condoned by sequence antiquated 13.05.2011 upheld in I.A No. 3700 of 2010.
The postulant respondent had brought a fit of a direct of divorce saying that he was practicing medicine in Homeopathy and his initial mother had died on 14.09.2005 due to cancer. Thereafter, he wanted to marry an unwed lady and a father of a appellant approached him saying that his daughter was unwed and of a good behaviour, and desiring this a matrimony between a parties was solemnized on 14.06.2008 during a Temple in Patna City, Patna. Thereafter both a parties came to Daltonganj where a father was practicing medicine in Homeopathy, and started vital together as father and wife. It is purported that after someday a mother started pressuring a father to send his whole skill in her name, that was abandoned by a postulant respondent, whereupon she started subjecting him to cruelty and torture. She also used to close his chamber, where a father was practicing. Thereafter, a petitioner-respondent brought his mother to his in-laws’ place, where his father-in- law asked him to leave his mother during his chateau for someday and he will try to scold her behaviour. On 15.08.2008 for a initial time a father-in-law of a postulant father sensitive him that his mother was already married progressing and she had womanlike child from her progressing father and he had to say a womanlike child also. The postulant father was repelled to hear this and he was not prepared for a same. On 09.08.2009 a mother came to a chateau of a postulant respondent during Daltonganj along with a womanlike child aged about dual and half years and afterward she started committing earthy and mental woe on a postulant respondent in several ways. She had also attempted to dedicate self-murder by pouring Kerosene Oil on herself in a participation of his patients, yet with a assistance of his patients she could be prevented from committing suicide. She also used to theme a postulant respondent to cruelty in several ways creation a life of a postulant respondent miserable, that forced a petitioner-respondent to record a fit for retraction of matrimony between a parties by a direct of divorce in a Court below.
The impugned Judgment shows that purebred notice was released to a conflicting celebration appellant by a Court below, that was also validly served on her on 12.12.2009. Thereafter, she also wrote a minute to a Court next acknowledging a receipt of a notice, and saying that she dictated to pierce a High Court for send of a box from Daltonganj to Jamshedpur, where she was vital with her parents, yet that was also not finished by her and no sequence of send was perceived in a Court below. Ultimately by sequence antiquated 30.03.2010 a box was bound for ex-parte proceeding.
It appears from a impugned Judgment that 4 witnesses were examined by a postulant in a Court below, including himself, and a witnesses current a box of cruelty and mental cruelty on a postulant respondent. The appellant did not seem in a Court next even for cross- examining those witnesses, and ultimately, by a ex-parte Judgment and Decree antiquated 22.05.2010, a matrimony between a parties was dissolved by a Court below, giving permanent subsistence of Rs. 1,00,000/- to a wife.
Learned warn for a appellant has submitted that a impugned Judgment upheld by a Court next can't be postulated in a eyes of law, inasmuch as, no family member of a petitioner-respondent was examined in a Court below, rather usually non-family member witnesses were examined, who had usually upheld a box of a petitioner-respondent. Learned warn submitted that in any eventuality a permanent subsistence postulated to her is during a really reduce side.
Learned warn for a respondent on a other palm has against a request and submitted that in annoy of receiving notice, a appellant did not seem in a Court below, even yet she had concurred by essay a minute to a Court next that she had perceived a notice. After giving sufficient event to a appellant a matter was bound for ex-parte pierce and after examining witnesses of a postulant respondent, who current a box of cruelty and mental cruelty on a postulant by a opposite-party-wife, a matrimony between a parties was dissolved by a direct of divorce. Learned warn submitted that there is no illegality in a impugned Judgment and Decree and even a benefaction interest was filed after an lavish check of 101 days.
Having listened schooled counsels for both a parties and on going by a record, we find no current reason for environment aside a ex-parte decree. It is an certified position that a notice released to a appellant was validly served on her and she had also created a minute to a Court next acknowledging a same and seeking time for bringing a sequence for send of a case. No focus for send of a box was filed by a appellant-wife in a High Court, and after watchful for sufficient duration a box was bound for ex-parte proceeding. The postulant respondent examined 4 witnesses, including himself, to infer a box of a cruelty and mental cruelty by a appellant and accordingly, a fit was intended on a basement of a justification on record. We do not find any illegality in a impugned Judgment, nor any current reason for environment aside a ex-parte Judgment and Decree, dissolving a matrimony between a parties by a direct of divorce.
So distant as a acquiescence of a schooled warn for a appellant that a permanent subsistence postulated to a appellant is of a reduce side, we are of a deliberate perspective that for encouragement of a volume of permanent subsistence it is always open to a appellant mother to pierce a efficient Court and to infer her box for any such encouragement underneath Section 25 of a Hindu Marriage Act.
We do not find any consequence in this interest and a same is accordingly, dismissed.
( H. C. Mishra, J.) (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)