IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 193 of 2016
[Against the judgment dated 20.09.2016, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 68 of 2008]
Smt. Rashmi Singh, wife of Arun Kumar Singh,
presently residing at C/175, B-Block, Sonari, Near Ram Mandir,
PO and PS- Sonari, Jamshedpur, District- Singhbhum East (Jharkhand).…Appellant
Arun Kumar Singh, son of Late Suraj Banse Singh,
resident of L-4/5, Link Road, Sitaramdera,
PO and PS- Sitaramdera, District- Singhbhum East.….Respondent
PRESENT : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate;
Mr. Tejo Mistry, Advocate;
Mr. Mahadeo Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. P.S. Dayal, Advocate.
Reserved on: 14/08/2018 Pronounced on: 5/12 /2018
Ratnaker Bhengra, J.:
1. Heard the parties.
2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.09.2016, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 68 of 2008, whereby, the learned Judge has been pleased to order, “That the suit is decreed on contest. Marriage solemnized between the parties on 30.05.1997 is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce” in favour of the petitioner, respondent now, since it is wholly illegal and without any valid evidence.
3. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner husband or respondent herein, was that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 30.05.1997 at Sonari near Ram Janki Mandir, Jamshedpur according to Hindu rites and customs. The parties lived together after the marriage at their matrimonial home at 22/H6, Flour Mill road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. They were blessed with two sons born on 30.11.1998 and 18.03.2000. It was alleged that respondent-wife or appellant herein, used to quarrel with the petitioner- husband and his family members on trivial matters and she always insisted to the petitioner to leave his parental house and stay at her father’s house at Sonari. When the petitioner-husband did not succumb to the demand of the respondent- wife then on 05.09.1999, respondent-wife deserted the petitioner-husband permanently and started living with her parents. The second son was born at TMH on 18.03.2000 during the period of desertion. Petitioner-husband was not even allowed to have a glimpse of his second son. The petitioner tried his best to bring back wife into his life and for the restoration of conjugal life, but all efforts by the petitioner, his parents and common friends were in vain. Thereafter petitioner instituted a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights being Matrimonial Suit No. 56/01 and all efforts of reconciliation was made. However, as per the said case also respondent-wife refused to lead conjugal life with the petitioner. Threat was meted out to the petitioner that he and his family members will be implicated in criminal cases and consequently on 26.04.2001 an Informatory Petition was filed by the applicant. On 31.08.2001 a complaint case bearing No. 945/01 was filed by the respondent-wife against the petitioner and his family members on the allegation of demand of dowry, cruelty and torture. At the intervention of Legal Aid Committee, Sonari, Jamshedpur, there was restitution of conjugal rights on 12.12.2003. However, again on 11.06.2004 respondent-wife deserted the petitioner and since then she is living separately. Originally respondent-wife had deserted the petitioner-husband on 05.09.1999 and on 12.12.2003 there was a restoration of conjugal rights and finally respondent-wife again deserted the petitioner- husband on 11.06.2004. Petitioner was deprived of his marital relationship as well as the company of his children. Petitioner stated that cruelty has been committed by filing a false criminal case and that the respondent-wife had deserted. He had withdrawn the suit for restoration of conjugal rights on 07.03.2003 and finally the present case has been filed for dissolution of the marriage that was soleminzed on 30.05.1997, by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
4. Respondent Rashmi Singh, appellant herein appeared and contested the claim of the petitioner-husband and filed a detailed written statement. She admitted the factum of marriage and that two children were born out of the wedlock. She stated that the petitioner- husband does not have any cause of action as she had not committed any cruelty on the petitioner nor had she deserted the petitioner, rather she is still ready and willing to live with the petitioner. It is the petitioner who had committed the acts of cruelty on her and forcibly ousted her from her matrimonial home. She denied the allegation of cruelty as made out by the petitioner and has stated that the petitioner demanded Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry from her parents prior to her first delivery for meeting the expenses towards the delivery. Thereafter she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 05.09.1999 at an advanced stage of second pregnancy and was compelled to take shelter in her parents home. She had not left her matrimonial home rather she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home in a most precarious condition. She had reiterated that she is ready to join the petitioner in her matrimonial home and wants to lead conjugal life with him but it is the petitioner who on every occasion did not allow her to share a conjugal life. She did not have any knowledge with regard to the informatory petition filled by the petitioner. The filing of the Compliant Case No. 945 of 2001 was based on true facts as it became unbearable for her to tolerate the cruelty meted out to her. She further said that Legal Aid Committee found her condition to be precarious and brought her back on 11.06.2004 to her parental home.
5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, following issues were framed for the adjudication of the suit:
I. Is the suit as framed maintainable?
II. Whether the applicant has valid cause of action?
III. Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty?
IV. Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner for a period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of this petition?
V. To what other relief is the petitioner is entitled?
6. In support of his case, altogether four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the petitioner-husband. They are Arun Kumar Singh, the petitioner-husband himself. AW-2 Vinod Kumar Singh, the brother of the petitioner, third and fourth witnesses Vijayendra Singh and Kailash Pati Singh respectively knew both the parties. Petitioner- husband also exhibited certain documents. Ext.1 is the certified copy of order dated 12.04.2001 and 17.04.2001 in Matrimonial Suit No.56 of 2001 which pertains to the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, Ext.2 is the order passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 56 of 2001 to show that respondent-wife was not ready to go to her matrimonial home, Ext.3 is certified copy of the order dated 26.04.2001 passed in informatory petition No. 20 of 2001 Ext.4 is the certified copy of the C/1 Case No.945 of 2001 filled by the respondent-wife, Ext.5 is the certified copy of order dated 21.04.2003 passed in C/1 Case No. 945 of 2001. Ext.6 is letter bearing the signature of respondent-wife, showing that she voluntarily left her matrimonial home and Ext.7 is certified copy of order dated 07.03.2003, passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 56 of 2001, showing that petitioner-husband had withdrawn the suit filed for the restitution of conjugal right.
7. Arun Kumar Singh, applicant himself fully supported the entire material averments made in plaint. He said that the respondent during her stay at matrimonial home always quarrelled with him and with other family members. She tried to create pressure on him to leave his family and reside in the house of the respondent. When the applicant did not yield to the pressure then the respondent deserted herself from him on 05.09.1999 and started living with her parents. Considering the threat meted out by the respondent, he filed an informatory petition No. 20/2001 before the learned CJM, Jamshedpur. He also stated that a false case of demand of dowry and cruelty vide C/1 Case No. 945 of 2001 was instituted against him and his family members. On 12.12.2003 with the intervention of Free Legal Aid Committee, Sonari, Jamshedpur and other family members reconciliation was done and the respondent came to his house on 12.12.2003, but again went back to her matrimonial home on 11.06.2004 without any responsible cause and since then again the parties are living separately and the respondent had deserted the applicant. It was stated that his father died on 24.10.2000 but despite information and knowledge neither respondent nor her parents attended the last ceremony. In his cross-examination he said that there was effort of reconciliation by order of this Court dated 01.04.2010 in Criminal Revision No. 1054/09 but he did not comply the order of the Hon’ble High Court to bring back his wife. On 11.09.2009, there was talk for reconciliation, but he refused to keep his wife.
8. AW-2, Vinod Kumar Singh, is the brother of the petitioner- husband. He stated that it was the respondent-wife who did not want to continue the matrimonial life and she deserted the petitioner- husband on 05.09.1999 and was residing with her parents. On efforts made by the Sonari P.S as well as Legal Aid Committee, she returned to her husband on 12.12.2003 but again deserted him in June 2004 and since then the parties are living separately. He had stated about the institution of criminal case by the respondent-wife and said that his brother is deprived of the pleasure of marital life since 11.06.2004. In the year 2000, he went to the house of respondent 2-3 times but attempt for reconciliation failed. He also stated that from 2001 to 2010 his brother did not make any efforts to bring back his wife. Respondent came back in terms of agreement at the initiation of Free Legal Aid Committee, but again she deserted in the year 2004.
9. Third witness for the petitioner-husband is AW-3, Vijayendra Singh, who knew both the parties. He stated that no demand of dowry was made. He further stated that the respondent-wife herself left the company of the petitioner-husband from 05.09.1999. The applicant made all efforts to bring back his wife but she refused unless and until applicant resides with her as Gharjamai at her maika. He also said that the petitioner-husband was denied to have even a glimpse of his second son born at TMH. The petitioner-husband comes from respectable family and he did all his best to save their matrimonial life. Respondent deserted herself from the company of her husband since 11.06.2004 stating that she is unable to live with her petitioner- husband.
10. The last and fourth witness from the side of petitioner-husband is Kailash Pati Singh. He stated that the respondent deserted the petitioner Arun Kumar Singh on 05.09.1999 and came back on 12.12.2003 and again on 11.06.2004 deserted the company of the petitioner. He stated that petitioner-husband was under judicial custody for four days in C/1 Case No. 945 of 2001 which was filed by the respondent-wife. Father of the petitioner died on 24.10.2000 and despite information neither the respondent nor her family members appeared in the last rituals. In his cross-examination, this witness says that he knows the petitioner-husband since the last 20 years and he goes to his house frequently. He said that he had gone to the village of the petitioner in November, 2000 at the time of Shradh of the father of the applicant. He further stated that there was compromise in the year 2003 before the Sonari P.S. as well as Legal Aid Committee and the respondent-wife had returned to her matrimonial home.
11. On behalf of the respondent two witnesses were examined. First witness Dhirendra Kumar Singh is the brother of the respondent-wife and the second witness Rashmi Singh is the respondent-wife herself. Respondent also exhibited documents. Ext.A is the photocopy of letter dated 11.06.2004 bearing the signature of respondent stating that she is leaving her matrimonial home voluntarily, Ext.B is order dated 01.04.2010 passed in Cr. Revision No. 1054 of 2009, Ext.C is order dated 14.07.2010 passed in Cr. Revision No. 1054 of 2009, Ext.D is the certified copy of order dated 11.03.2009 of the Mediation Centre passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 68 of 2008.
12. Dhirendra Kumar Singh, who is the brother of the respondent- wife stated that marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 30.05.1997 and out of the said wedlock two sons were born on 30.11.1998 and 18.03.2000. He stated that his sister had to undergo physical and mental cruelty due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. In his presence also demand of dowry was made. Entire family members of the petitioner-husband used to support the petitioner in causing cruelty on the respondent. Petitioner pressurized the respondent to give Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry. He further said that the petitioner in his attempt to obtain divorce from the respondent, firstly instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was conspicuously withdrawn and subsequently the present case had been filed for divorce. The petitioner wanted to solemnize second marriage after getting divorce from the respondent. He stated that after reconciliation before the Free Legal Aid Committee when the respondent started living with her husband from 12.12.2003, again cruelty was meted out and he was compelled to bring back his sister on 11.06.2004. He also stated about institution of the case for maintenance vide Miscellaneous Case No. 123/ 2007 in which order was passed to pay Rs.6000/- per month as maintenance which was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court where also efforts towards reconciliation was made, but the applicant refused to keep his wife. Lastly he said that petitioner or his brother or other members never came to get Vidayee for his sister. In cross examination, this witness stated that respondent is presently residing with her parents in their village. Matrimonial Suit No. 56/01 was filed with conspiracy to commit her murder.
13. Next witness is respondent herself, Rashmi Singh. In her examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit, she had supported the case as made out in his written statement. She said that two sons were born out of the said wedlock. She had stated that demand of Rs. 3,00,000/- as dowry was made and for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, cruelty was meted out on her. She also stated that she was ousted from her matrimonial home before the birth of her second child.
was filed to return back to her matrimonial home with her children. But there was conspiracy and so she did not accompany her husband to her matrimonial home. She further stated that reconciliation was made by the Free Legal Aid Committee and she went to her matrimonial home. But again within six months she was ousted from her matrimonial home. In cross-examination, she said that she is a graduate and her marriage was an arranged marriage. Both children were born at TMH and expenses of hospital was met by her parents. She stated that Rs.1.55 lac was given as dowry. She further said that at the time of birth of the first child Rs.3,00,000/- was demanded and on refusal she was sent to her parental home. She stated that in February 1999 she came to her matrimonial home with her first child but again she was meted cruelty for demand of Rs.3,00,000/-. She had appeared in Matrimonial Suit No. 56/01, but she did not agree to go as she was apprehending threat to her life.
Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant:
14. Learned counsel for the appellant or wife, Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, has argued that only the evidence of the petitioner- husband or respondent herein in the court below was considered and the evidence of the wife or the appellant herein was not at all considered. Neither can any cruelty or desertion be proved on the part of the appellant-wife, rather it is only due to the cruelty of the respondent-husband the appellant was compelled to leave her house. Therefore, the husband should not be allowed to take advantage of his own actions. Counsel for the appellant continued that there was a demand for Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry from the parents of the appellants and because of this, she was put too much mental pressure and harassment. When demand of Rs.3,00,000/- was denied then she was ousted from the matrimonial home on 05.09.1999, and that too, at an advanced stage of pregnancy. This act of demand of such a large sum of money should not have been made in any case by putting pressure on her to deliver the same, also compelling her to leave her matrimonial home at an advanced stage of pregnancy and this amounts to grave cruelty inflicted on the appellant-wife. The husband, the respondent herein, never bother to get information regarding the health of the wife while she was carrying second child and also regarding the health of the child on delivery.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the aspect of cruelty is not an issue that has been raised before the court below by the respondent husband rather prior to the Matrimonial Suit No. 68 of 2008, the appellant-wife had already filed a Complaint Case No. 945 of 2001 based on cruelty wherein she had alleged of the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 506, 109/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, it is not so that this cruelty was concocted or contrived on the part of the appellant- wife but was existing and therefore, she was ultimately compelled to leave the house of her husband or the respondent herein. Therefore, allowing divorce in favour of the husband will only be allowing him to take advantage of his own acts of cruelty which compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial house, which in no way can be construed as desertion.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the learned court below failed to take into account the evidence of the brother of the appellant-wife who is Dhirendra Kumar Singh. From his evidence it is clear that the demand of dowry was made in his presence. He was in the know of the physical and mental cruelty that was being inflicted on his sister for the non-fulfilment of demands for dowry. Due to the continuous harassment and cruelty he was compelled to bring his sister from her matrimonial home and it cannot be construed that the appellant herein had left her matrimonial home on her own accord rather she was tortured and harassed so much so in her matrimonial house that she had no other alternative but to leave the house of her husband. As per the evidence of the brother, it is apparent that the restitution of conjugal rights suit filed by the husband was only done as a shield or cover and he was merely laying the grounds for ultimately filing of the divorce case against the wife. The husband or the respondent herein was fully aware that due to the cruelty and harassment he had inflicted on his wife she would be unable to come back to the matrimonial house and restore the conjugal rights to the respondent herein, therefore, giving him good grounds to file his divorce suit. Therefore, counsel reiterates that the evidence of the brother of the appellant in the court below was not adequately considered by the Family Court.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that it is patently clear from the evidences of the minor sons of the couple, i.e. from the evidence of Amod Kumar Singh, aged 12 and Ajit Kumar Singh, aged 13 that the mother has been compelled to leave the matrimonial house because of the harassment and in fact assault inflicted by the husband on the wife, the appellant herein. Counsel says that this evidence of the sons has not been considered at all by the learned Family Court. Learned counsel for the appellant again reiterates that from the evidences or the depositions of the couple sons also the compelling reasons for so-called desertion of the wife is thus made out. Learned counsel also says that appellant-wife had also made efforts to seek reconciliation by the mediation conducted by the Free Legal Aid Committee and that she has always been willing to live with her husband and is even now willing to live with the husband and fully restore conjugal rights with her husband, the respondent herein, in spite of the fact that she is very fearful of him because of the past behaviour of her husband.
Arguments of the respondent:
18. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. P.S. Dayal, has countered the arguments of the appellant and submitted that the wife or the appellant has in no way demonstrated a willingness or keenness to live with the husband. Rather right from the start, she has, on the other hand, by withdrawing herself from the society of the husband inflicted marital cruelty on the husband and by deserting also created the situations that has now resulted against her very own self, and she should not be allowed to take of her own doings. Learned counsel has argued that regarding the restitution of conjugal rights application Matrimonial Suit No. 56/01 which had been made by the husband it was not a step merely for preparing the grounds for divorce as has been alleged by the appellant herein. It is clear from the order dated 25.11.2002 of Matrimonial Suit No. 56/01 that she has openly stated in court that she is not ready to go to her marital house and is not ready to live with the husband. As per this order, the husband had filed a petition giving a date for bidai of his wife but she had prayed that the same may be rejected. Counsel for the respondent has then pointed out from the order dated 07.03.2003 of Matrimonial Suit No. 56/01 passed by the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, wherein noting the attitude of the wife and the indications to this extent made by her husband has thus granted leave to withdraw the restitution of conjugal rights suit and accordingly, then only it was dismissed. Consequent to that then he had filed the suit for divorce at a later stage.
19. Learned counsel has then pointed out that the husband was also willing and in cooperation with the wife responded to the efforts made by the Free Legal Aid Committee and on the basis of the reconciliation that was made with their assistance they finally lived together, but that was only for a period of six months. Thereafter, she left on her own accord and has left the company of the husband ever since. Learned counsel submitted that with the assistance of the Free Legal Aid Committee conjugal rights was restored on 12.12.2003, but she again deserted the company of the husband on 11.06.2004, therefore, only after a period of about six months she unilaterally withdrew from the company of the husband and after that she has made no efforts to come back again to her husband and from the year 2004 till now a long period of desertion to the extent of fourteen years now at this late stage can also be made out.
20. Learned counsel for the respondent herein has argued that ever since of marriage which was in the year 1997 and even during the periods when her first son was born, the appellant herein used to pick quarrel with the petitioner or respondent herein and his family members on small and insignificant matters. However when the matter became serious she naggingly insisted that the husband or the respondent herein to leave his parental house and stay at her father’s house at Sonari. When the respondent herein did not agree to such outrageous demand of his wife then she unilaterally withdrew from the company of the husband on 05.09.1999 in the first instance. Counsel here points out that even at this juncture it can be seen that no major example of cruelty can be pointed out by her or indicated by her even during the period of her first desertion. Counsel has argued that after she had left and a son was born to them he was not even allowed to have a glimpse of his second son which inflicted tremendous pain on him.
21. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent had always previously tried to bring back his wife so that he could enjoy the company and happy married life and therefore, he had filed the application for the restoration of conjugal life but in spite of his best efforts he failed in this attempt also. Rather on the other hand appellant filed a Complaint Case bearing No. 945 of 2001 with various allegations of cruelty under various Sections of the IPC which were totally unfounded which also demonstrates a kind of cruelty she herself is able to inflict, and therefore, she should not be allowed to take advantage of her own wrong doing.
22. Learned counsel further submitted that with the aid of the Free Legal Aid Committee, there was mediation made and conjugal rights were restored on 12.12.2003. However, the appellant herein again deserted the respondent herein and since then both of them are living separately. Counsel has argued that due to the fact of mediation and restitution made on 12.12.2003 it can be argued for the sake of argument that even if the earlier cases of action and retribution of either side are kept on the shelf, even then there has been fresh cause of action from 11.06.2004 when she has been deserting the matrimonial home and he has filed the matrimonial suit for divorce in the court below only in the year 2008 after advert of time in the intervening period, and now in the year 2018, it is almost ten years since the institution of the matrimonial suit, wherein the wife is said to have deserted his company and the company of her matrimonial home and where he has been denied the company of his wife and his children. Therefore, both grounds of cruelty and desertion against the wife is fully made out, and hence, the judgment of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbum at Jamshedpur dated 20.09.2016 in Matrimonial Suit No. 68 of 2008 needs to be fully sustained and upheld.
23. Having heard both counsels, gone through the records of the case and the evidences, the following are observed:
(i) Noting the situation wherein on 12.12.2003 after peace was restored with the help of the Free Legal Aid Committee between the parties involved that there was settlement between the husband and the wife for around six months till 11.06.2004, we have considered it appropriate to see the aspect of desertion rather than the issue of cruelty. Though in such cases desertion can be caused by behaviour that can be alleged to be true, on the other hand, desertion can be of such a nature that also results in tremendous cruelty on the other spouse. In the case on hand, however, it is noted that initial withdrawal by the wife is on 05.09.1999. Even then, prior to that no such major reason for desertion can be made out. Though allegations of dowry demands have been made and accompanied torture and harassment, they do not seem to be as yet substantiated. And thereafter the husband and the wife had lived separately and in between, the wife had filed Complaint Case No. 945 of 2001 alleging cruelty under various sections of the IPC and thereafter, the husband had filed suit for restoration of conjugal rights. Subsequently, with the help of the Free Legal Aid Committee, there was a period of peace and finally she deserted on 11.06.2004. The husband or the respondent herein filed his matrimonial suit for divorce, only in the year 2008 and therefore adequate period had already passed in between for the suit to be filed. She had made no efforts to then get back into the company of the husband, she herself has not filed any restitution of conjugal rights suit on the other hand. Rather she is prosecuting the Complaint Case No. 945 of 2001 against him. It would extremely impractical and difficult for the husband or the respondent herein to take back his wife into his company when she herself is not interested, rather she is not willing to withhold criminal charges against the husband.
(ii) In this matter, the evidence Exhibit-A, which has been cited by the wife and Exhibit-6, which has also been cited by her husband is rather telling and of most significance of her intention to permanently forsake the matrimonial tie. This exhibit which is letter dated 11.06.2004 bears signature of the appellant-wife wherein it is written that she is leaving the matrimonial home of her husband or her sasusal and going to her maternal home (maika) on her own accord, the reasons being that she is not able or unable to live with her in-laws in spite of the best efforts made by her and that she is leaving so in the company of her two brothers and that she has also informed the police. Coupled with this animus deserendi, her physical act of desertion on 11.06.2004 without any fresh grounds shown after their reunion on 12th December, 2003 goes to complete the ingredients of desertion.
(iii) We also see that the husband had made reasonable efforts by his suit for the restoration of conjugal rights to get back his wife and children so that they could lead a peaceful married life. However, as per the observations made by the learned court below she had stated in the open court that she is not ready to go back to her marital house and not ready to live with her husband and she had also refused or rejected the date of bidai , therefore, even along with this evidence, it seems that in the history of the case the wife has been an unwilling partner in going back to her husband even in the past. Thereafter, after a short period of six months when they had lived together she had unilaterally withdrawn from the company of her husband on 11.06.2004 without any proven cause or justification. She has apparently made no efforts towards getting back into the company of her husband ever since. It is now 2018 and since the year 2004 almost fourteen years have passed. The husband had instituted hismatrimonial suit or suit for divorce in the year 2008 i.e. after waiting for her to come back for about four years period in between from 2004. Therefore, the offence of desertion on the part of the wife is fully made out and the husband or the respondent herein was rightfully held entitled for relief of divorce on the grounds of desertion.
(iv) Regarding maintenance, we leave it to the appellant herein to invoke the same in the appropriate forum, if she so desires.
24. In view of the above observation and the discussion, judgment dated 20.09.2016, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbum at Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 68 of 2008, whereby, the learned Judge had been pleased to order that the “marriage solemnized between the parties on 30.05.1997 is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce” is upheld.
25. Accordingly, this appeal of the appellant herein is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) NAFR S.B.