SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Birju Prasad vs Nitu Gupta on 10 April, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.5895 of 2018

Birju Prasad, Aged about 40 years, S/o Late Ramchandra Sao, resident of
Village-Khunti, Karra Road, Kumhartoli, P.O. Khunti, P.S. Khunti District-
Khunti.
…… Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Nitu Gupta, W/o Birju Prasad, D/o Dinesh Prasad, Resident of Dharmsala
Road, Village Aurangabad, P.O. Aurangabad, P.S. Aurangabad District-
Aurangabad (Bihar).
…… Respondent
——-

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

——-

For the Petitioner : Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate
Ms. Shristi Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Sugandha, Advocate
For the Respondent :
—————————-

06/Dated 10th April, 2019

1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
wherein the order dated 05.09.2018 passed in Matrimonial Title Suit
No.270 of 2013 is under challenge whereby and whereunder the
petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff dated 09.04.2018 under
Order XXXII-A Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure has
been rejected wherein a direction was sought for for medical
examination of the respondent/wife.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made
in the writ petition is that the marriage between the
petitioner/plaintiff/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized
on 15.02.2004 and thereafter they have started residing together in
the petitioner’s house at Khunti but the respondent/wife did not
indulge in any sexual intercourse with the petitioner/husband on the
nuptial night and afterwards.

3. The petitioner however attempted to make sexual intercourse with
2

the respondent but the respondent only once had sexual intercourse
with the petitioner that too was one sided and whenever the
petitioner had attempted, the respondent has refused, therefore, it
is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent is not in
capacity to consummate the marriage.

The further fact is that the respondent has lodged a criminal
case being Khunti P.S. Case No.64 of 2009 for commission of offence
under
Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and his family members
but subsequently the matter was compromised on 01.02.2010 and
on the basis of the terms of compromise the case was disposed of
vide order dated 12.05.2010.

4. The respondent/wife left her matrimonial home on 20th January,
2011 along with her belongings, clothes, cash of Rs.8,000/- and in
consequence thereof, the petitioner had no option and instituted a
matrimonial title suit for decree of divorce by filing an application
under
Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
dissolution of marriage in which the respondent had appeared and
filed written statement.

Thereafter, the matter has been posted at the stage of
evidence and evidences of both the parties have been concluded.
The respondent was thoroughly cross-examined and then a petition
has been filed on 09.04.2018 under Order XXXII-A Rule 5 r/w
Section 151 of C.P.C. for issuance of direction for medical
examination of the respondent but the same having been refused by
the trial Court, the instant writ petition has been filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in order to
come to the rightful conclusion and for best and appropriate
adjudication of the issue, the medical examination of the
respondent/wife, in order to assess the impotency, is required to be
done, therefore the said petition was filed but without appreciating
the fact that in absence of the medical examination the proper
adjudication of the issue is not possible, the trial Court has rejected
3

the petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of
Sharda vs. Dharmpal, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 493 and Lalit
Kishore vs. Meeru Sharma and Anr., reported in (2009) 9 SCC

433.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone across
the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the impugned order
and from its perusal it is evident that matrimonial title suit has been
filed under the provision of
Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.

It is further evident that prior to filing of the said matrimonial
title suit, the respondent/wife has instituted a criminal case against
the petitioner/husband and his family members for commission of
offence under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section
3/
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act being numbered as Khunti P.S. Case
no.64 of 2009, however, the same was compromised on 01.02.2010
and in terms thereof, the case was disposed of vide order dated
12.05.2010.

It is further evident that in the matrimonial title suit, the
respondent/wife has put her appearance, filed written statement
and disputed the ground for dissolution of marriage and thereafter
issues have been framed by the trial Court and the parties have
been examined/cross-examined.

8. The respondent/wife has also been cross-examined thoroughly but
she all along disputed the allegation of impotency/infertility and only
thereafter a petition has been filed on 09.04.2018 under Order
XXXII-A Rule 5 read with Section 151 of C.P.C.

9. The content of the said application has seriously been disputed by
the respondent/wife by filing rejoinder stating inter alia therein that
the petitioner/plaintiff wants to hamper on the prestige of his wife
4

and the prestige of a lady and that too when each and every
question has been answered boldly by her in course of her cross-
examination and further the petitioner wants to move beyond his
pleading. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter and taking
into consideration stage of the suit, the petition dated 09.04.2018
has been rejected against which the instant writ petition has been
filed.

10. This Court before going into the legality and propriety of the order
deem it fit and proper to discuss about the provision of Order
XXXII-A Rule 5
of the Code of Civil Procedure which speaks as
follows:-

“5. Duty to inquire into facts.–In every suit or proceeding
to which this Order applies, it shall be the duty of the Court to
inquire, so far it reasonably can, into the facts alleged by the
plaintiff and into any facts alleged by the defendant.”

11. It is evident from the provision of Order XXXII-A Rule 5 of C.P.C. that
every suit or proceeding to which this order applies, it shall be the
duty of the Court to inquire, so far it reasonably can, into the facts
alleged by the plaintiff and into any facts alleged by the defendant,
meaning thereby, the duties cast upon the Court to inquire, so far it
reasonably can, into the facts alleged by the defendant.

12. The issue with respect to the power to be exercised by the
matrimonial Court was the subject matter before the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of
Sharda vs. Dharmpal (supra) wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to formulate two questions:-

(a) whether a matrimonial Court has the power to direct a
party to undergo medical examination ?

(b) whether passing of such an order would be in violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India ?

The Hon’ble Apex Court after discussing the scope and the
jurisdiction of the trial court has been pleased to hold at paragraph
76 that in all such matrimonial cases where divorce is sought for, say
5

on the ground of impotency, schizophrenia etc. normally without
there being medical examination, it would be difficult to arrive at a
conclusion as to whether the allegation made by a spouse against
the other spouse seeking divorce on such a ground is correct or not.
In order to substantiate such allegation, the petitioner would always
insist on medical examination. If the respondent avoids such medical
examination on the ground that it violates his or her privacy or for
that matter right to personal liberty as enshrined under
Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, then it may in most of such cases become
impossible to arrive at a conclusion. It may render the very grounds
on which divorce is permissible nugatory, therefore, when there is
no right to privacy specifically conferred by
Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and with the extensive interpretation of the
phrase “personal liberty” this right has been read into
Article 21, it
cannot be treated as an absolute right.

It is thus evident that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of
Sharda vs. Dharmpal (supra) is on the
text of violation of fundamental rights as conferred under
Article 21
of the Constitution of India and in that circumstances, the denial of
medical examination has been made to be not proper in order to
reach to the rightful conclusion.

The other judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of
Lalit Kishore vs. Meeru Sharma (supra) has been
pleased to deliver the judgment regarding the power to be exercised
by the matrimonial Court to send the party for medical examination,
as the case may be, by putting reliance upon the judgment rendered
in the case of
Sharda vs. Dharmpal (supra).

13. It is not in dispute that each and every judgment is to be tested on
the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and there is no
universal application of any judgment, this Court therefore has
examined the factual aspect in order to assess as to whether the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sharda vs. Dharmpal (supra) is applicable in the facts and
6

circumstance of the instant case or not ?

14. As has been stated hereinabove and is evident from the factual
aspect involved in the case of
Sharda vs. Dharmpal (supra) the
judgment has been delivered purely on the context of the provision
of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India but what has been gathered
by this Court by going across the finding recorded by the trial Court
in the impugned order that is not the ground therein rejecting the
application on the ground of violation of the provision of
Article 21
of the Constitution of India rather the ground for rejection is that
the respondent/wife has thoroughly been cross-examined as would
be evident from the evidence on oath of the respondent/wife and
her cross-examination as contained under Annexure-6/1 appended
to the writ petition, the same is being referred for ready reference
hereinbelow:-

“In the Court of Sri Rajesh Kumar No-1-D.A.S.J. Ist at Khunti
M.T.S. No. 270/2013
Birju Parsad Vrs Nitu Devi (Nitu Gupta)
Jheku~ ftyk U;k;k/kh’k izFke] [kw¡Vh
,e0 Vh0 ,l0 270@2013
fcjtw izlkn————————————————————————————————————–vkosnd
cuke~
uhrq nsoh ¼uhrq xqIrk½———————————————————————————————–foi{kh
o eqdnesa lnj esa foi{kh uhrq nsoh xqIrk ifr fcjtq izlkn
dh vksj ls lk{kh la[;k 3 dk vkns’k 18 fu;e 4 O;ogkj
ifdk lafgrk ds vUrxZr eq[; ijh{k.k dk ‘kiFk i fuEu
izdkj gS%
‘kiFk i
eSa uhrq xqIrk] firk Jh fnus’k izlkn] mez 32 o”kZ] tkfr gyokbZ] /keZ fgUnq]
is’kk O;olk; O;ikj] fuoklh bLyke Vksyh th0 Vh0 jksM vapy] vkSjaxkckn lnj Fkkuk +
iks0 + ftyk vkSjaxkckn] ¼fcgkj½ ek;ds oks ifr Jh fcjtw izlkn fuoklh xzke djkZ jksM+
dqEgkj Vksyh [kw¡Vh] Fkkuk [kw¡Vh] ftyk [kw¡Vh ¼kj[k.M½ ¼llqjky½ eksckbZy ua0 ‘kiFkiwoZd
fuEufyf[kr C;ku nsrh gw¡ fd%
1- ;g fd bl okn esa eSa foi{kh gw¡ A
2- ;g fd fcjtw izlkn esjs ifr gSAa
3- ;g fd esjh fookg ds i’pkr~ eSa esjs ifr fcjtw izlkn ds ?kj djkZ jksM dqEgkj Vksyh
[kw¡Vh vk;h vkSj ifr lax jgus yxh ,oa eSa ,oa eSa ,oa esjs ifr lEeku iwoZd ,d nwljs ds
7

izfr vius nkEir; drZO;ksa dk ikyu djrs FksA
4- ;g fd eSa vius llqjky esa vU; efgyk lnL;ksa ds lax ?kj dh nSfud dk;ksZa dks
lEHkkyrh Fkh oks ifr pkmfeu dk nqdku pykus ds fy, ?kj ls ckgj tkrs FksA
5- ;g fd tc rd eSa esjs llqjky djkZ jksM dqEgkj Vksyh [kw¡Vh esa jgh eSa vius ifr ds
bPNk ds vuqdwy viuh vksj ls vius ifr ds izfr nkEiR; drZO;ksa dk ikyu iwjs lEeku
ds lkFk dh rFkk ifr ds bPNk ds vuqdwy ifr lax ‘kkjhfjd lac/k LFkkfir dh ,oa
nksuksa i{k ,d nwljs ls larq”V jgrs FksA
6- ;g fd lu~ 2009 bZ0 esa esjs ifr ,oa llqjky okys eqs ekufld oks ‘kkjhfjd :i ls
izrkfMr djus yxs ftlls rax vkdj ngst mRihM+u dk okn eSa esjs ifr oks llqjky ds
vU; lnL;ksa ds f[kykQ [kw¡Vh Fkkuk esa ntZ dh tks lekSrk ds vk/kkj ij lekIr gks
x;kA
7- ;g fd mDr ngst mRihM+u okn esa esjs ifr esjs lkFk lekSrk dj eqs viuk ?kj ys
x;s vkSj lu~ 2013 rd ¼3 o”kksZ rd½ ge nksuksa i{kdkj lEeku iwoZd nkEiR; dRroZ;ksa
dk ikyu djrs jgs ,oa bl nkSjku ifr ds bPNk ds vuqdwy ifr ds lkFk ‘kkjhfjd laca/k
LFkkfir djrh jgh ,oa nksuksa i{k ,d nwljs ls larq”V jgrs FksA
8- ;g fd esjh ‘kknh ds nwljs o”kZ esa esjs ifr esjs uke ls tehu [kjhnus gsrq esjs ek;ds
ls 150000@¼Ms+ yk[k½ :iS;k ekaxs ftls esjs firk vius O;kikj ds vk; esa ls esjh
mifLFkfr esa gh esjs ifr dks fn;s ftlls esjs ifr esjs uke ls 0-03 ,dM+ ¼rhu Mh0½
tehu [kjhns ftldk jftLVzh iV~Vk esjs uke ls fucaf/kr gS vkSj mDr iV~Vk U;k;ky; esa
nkf[ky gSA
9- ;g fd lu~ 2012 bZ0 esa esjs ifr diV iwoZd esjs uke ls mDr tehu dks vius uke
ls fucaf/kr eq[rkjukek i }kjk gLrkarfjr djok fy;s vkSj viuh eka ¼esjh lkl½ dqfUr
nsoh ds i{k esa gLrkarj.k dj fn;sA
10- ;g fd fnukad 25-05-2013 bZ0 dks esjs ifr fcjtw izlkn eqs esjh ek;ds vkSjaxkckn
igq¡pk fn;s rFkk nks fnuksa rd ogka jgus ds ckn ¼fcjtw izlkn½ dqN fnuksa esa ykSV vkus
dh ckr cksydj os vdsyk gh [kw¡Vh vk x, vkSj nks lIrkg ckn nwjHkk”k esa eqs ,oa esjs
ek;ds okyksa dks Qksu dj cksys fd vc eqs os iRuh ds :i esa ugha j[ksxk oks nwljh
‘kknh dj ysxkA
11- ;g fd 25-05-2013 bZ0 dks ifr lax ek;ds tkus ds le; vius ‘kjhj esa /kkj.k fd;s
J`axkj ds vykok vU; lksuk pkanh dk tsojkr oks diM+k vius llqjky esa gh NksM+ dj
pyh xbZ Fkh tks fuEu izdkj gS% lksuk dk daxu 2 ihl] lksuk dh pkj iksyk] 1 lksuk
dk psu] ,d usdysl] lksuk dk] dku dk qedk lksuk dk 1 tksM+k] VkWIl 4 tksM+k] pkanh
dk ,d dej/kuh] lksus dh N% vaxqBh] iStc pkanh dk ,d tksM+k] ,d tksM+k ik;y tks
fookg ds oDr eqs esjs fj’rsnkjksa oks ekrk firk }kjk migkj Lo:i feyk FkkA blds
vykok ukd dk fdy 6 ihl lksuk dk] vk/kkj dkMZ bR;kfnA tks vkt rd esjs llqjky
esa gh gS bl tsojkr oks xguksa dks esjh fookg ds oDr esjs ekrkfirk fjLrsnkjksa us eqs
fn;k Fkk tks esjh Lh /ku gSA
12- ;g fd esjh ‘kknh esa esjs ek;ds okyksa] }kjk migkj Lo:i eqs nh xbZ ?kjsyw leku
xksnjst] Vh0ch0 fÝt] Iyax] lksQk] MkbZfuax Vscy ,oa ?kjsyq crZu bR;kfn tks esjh
Lh/ku gS esjs ifr ds ?kj esa gh gSA
13- ;g fd esjs lax esjs ifr dks laHkksx lq[k ugha feyrk FkkA ;g ckr fcYdqy xyr gS
8

cukoVh gS oks esjh Hkkouk dks Bsl igq¡pkus okyk gSA ge nksuksa i{kksa dks ,d nqljs ds
bPNkuqlkj oklukRed larqf’V dh izkfIr gksrh FkhA
14- ;g fd esjs ifr dk QkLV QqV dk nqdku gS blls rhu pkj djhxkj ds lkFk dk;Z
laHkkyrs gS o mlesa 2530 gtkj :i;s lHkh [kpZ dkV dj ekfld vkenuh gksrh gSA
15- ;g fd fnukad 14-12-2017 dks e/;LFkk dsUnz [kw¡Vh esa esjs ifr esjs lkFk lekSrk dj
vius ?kj djkZ jksM+ fLFkr ys x, ;g dgrs gq, dh lekSrk gks tk,xk og j[kus ds
fy, rs;kj gS rFkk 15-12-2017 dks e/;LFkrk dsUnz }kjk ge nksuksa ds fcp lekSrk dk
iapkV cuk ftl ij eSa esjs ifr fcjtw izlkn gLrk{kj fd;s gSA
16- ;g fd ge nksuksa i{k e/;LFkrk dsUnz O;ogkj U;k;ky; esa fnukad 14-12-2017 dks
mifLFkr gq, mlds ckn 17@01@2018 dks eSa esjs ifr ds lkFk ifr ds ?kj pyh vkbZ
vkSj 17@01@2018 ls 19@01@2018 rd ifr ds lkFk vius llqjky esa jgh vkSj
llqjky fnukad 20@01@2018 dks U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gqbZ ysfdu esjs ifr eqs vius
lkFk ugha j[ksaxsa dgdj esjs HkkbZ pUnu dqekj ds lkFk okil ek;ds tkus ds fy, cksy
fn;kA eSa vius HkkbZ ds lkFk ek;ds pyh xbZA
17- ;g fd eSa esjs ifr dks rykd nsuk ugha pkgrh gw¡ muds lkFk iRuh ds :i esa jgdj
nkEiR; drZO;ksa dks muds bPNk vuqdwy ikyu djus gsrq ekufld oks ‘kkjhfjd :i ls
rS;kj gw¡A
eSa uhrq xqIrk ‘kiFkiwoZd c;ku nsrk gw¡ fd mijksDr lHkh ckrsa esjs crk;s vuqlkj fy[kk
x;k gS ftls eSa ih leh ,oa lR; fy[kk ikdj vkt fnukad 17@03@2018 dks [kw¡Vh
U;k;ky; ifjlj esa viuk gLrk{kj cuk fn;k k
Sd/-Illegible
uhrq nsoh
13-3-18 ‘kiFkdrkZ
Sareshtedar
CIVIL COURT, KHUNTI

FORM OF HEADING OF DEPOSITION
M.T.S. Case No. 270/13
Deposition of witness No……..DW3……….for the ……….Opposit
Party………….Aged about…………………32 Years……………taken
on solemn affirmartion on the……………………..17 day
of…………………..ekpZ…………………..2018………………..My name is
………..uhrq xqIrk…………………………………………………………………………….

I am, son/daughter/wife of…………Jh fcjtw izlkn
………………………………………………………My age is……………………….32
years, I am by religion………………….fgUnq………………………..My
nationality is………Hkkjrh;…………..and belong to Scheduled
9

Caste/Scheduled Tribe. My home is at Mauza……bLyke Vksyh th0 Vh0
jksM vkSjaxkckn……Police Station…..vkSjaxkckn…
………….District……….vkSjaxkckn] fcgkj………………………I reside at present
in Mauza……….bLyke Vksyh th0 Vh0 jksM vkSjaxkckn…………Police
Station………..vkSjaxkckn………..District………vkSjaxkckn] fcgkj………..Where I
am ………..x`g.kh…………….

‘kiFki dh izfrijh{k.k
18- nksuksa i{k ds ‘kknh dk e/;LFkk Lo0 ;nq uaUnu izlkn xqIrk] fuoklh cjfc?kk ds FksA
19- oj i{k ds ‘kknh dk ckr Jh fcjtw izlkn ds cM+s HkkbZ FksA
20- dU;k i{k ls ‘kknh dk ckrfpr djus ds fy, esjs firk ,oa ekek th FksA
21- ‘kknh ds ysunsu dh ckrs esjs firk vkSj ekek th tkurs gS] eSa ugha tkurh gw¡
22- esjh ‘kknh ds 2013 rd vius llqjky esa BhdBkd jgh dksbZ Hkh yM+kbZ xM+k ugha
gqbZ FkhA
23- eSa vthZ i+h gw¡a esjs ifr rykd dk dsl fd, gSa
24- eSa bl dsl dk tckc nkf[ky dh gw¡ ftldks eSaus i+dj gLrk{kj dh gw¡A
25- eSa esjs llqjky esa djhc 2530 O;fDr;ksa dk [kkuk cukbZ FkhA
26- esjs HkkbZ dk uke panu dqekj gSA esjs HkkbZ lky esa 45 ckj esjs llqjky vkrs FksA
esjs firk Hkh lky esa ,dnks ckj esjs llqjky vkrs FksA
27- esjs llqjky esa eqs [kkuk Bhd ls ugha feyrk Fkk ijarq esjk diM+k esjs ek;ds ls
vkrk FkkA
28- esjs ifr esjs t:jr dk lkeku eqs ugh nsrs FksA esjs ifr eqs dgrs Fks fd rqe esjk
nwljk ‘kknh djkvksxh rc rqedks ax ls lc nsaxsa ugha rks ugha nsaxsA
29- pw¡fd esjs ifr dks nwljh ‘kknh djus dk ‘kkSd gS blfy, ;g dgdj fd bldks
cPpk ugha gS eqs ?kj ls Hkxkuk pkgrs gSA
30- o”kZ 2009 rd eSa BhdBkd Fkh ijarq 2009 ds ckn geyksxksa ds chp xM+k ‘kq:
gqvk esjs Åij vR;kpkj gksus yxk vkSj blds ckn eSa esjs ifr ij dsl dj nhA
31- eSaus vius ifr ,oa llqjky ds vU; yksxksa ij mDr dsl bl ckr dks ysdj dh Fkh
fd os yksx eq ij fdjklu rsy Mkydj eqs tykdj ekj nsuk pkgrs FksA blds ckn
ek;ds okys vkus ds ckn esjh tku cp xbZA
32- eqs bl dsl dk dsl uacj] fnu] rkfj[k] ;kn ugha gS iqu% dgrh gS fd esjs odhy
lkgc ds ikl eqdnek ds dkxtkr gSA
33- esjs ifr fcjtw izlkn us esjs firk ls 50 gtkj :i;s dh ekax fd, Fks vkSj esjs firk
us esjs ifr fcjtw izlkn dks fn,A
34- esjs ifr fcjtw izlkn us esjs firk dks 50 gtkj :i;s vkt rd okil ugha fd,A
35- eSa nkEiR; lq[k dh ifjHkk”kk tkurh gw¡A
35- genksuksa ds chp nkEiR; lq[k ds fy, ‘kkjhfjd laca/k gksrk FkkA
1- iz’u ifr ds }kjk ‘kkjhfjd laca/k LFkkfir djus ds fy, mDlkrs Fksa rks D;k vki
rS;kj gksrs Fks
mRrj% gkWAa
2- iz’u ‘kkjhfjd lq[k ugha feyus ds dkj.k u [kq’k jgrs Fks vkSj xqLlk esa jgrs Fks
10

mRrj% genksuksa ifr iRuh [kq’k jgrs FksA
3- iz’u vkids ifr [kq’k jgrs Fks ;g vki dSls tkurs gSa
mRrj% eSa esjs ifr ls lkFklkFk jgrh Fkh blfy, eqs irk gS fd esjs ifr eqls [kq’k
jgrs FksA
36- esjs ifr lgokl djus ds l{ke ,oa LoLFk gSaA
37- eSa esjs ifr dks lgokl djus esa lg;ksx djrh FkhA
38- iz’u lgokl laHkksx djus ds fy, dkSu igys igy djrk Fkk
mRrj genksuksa ds eu ls gksrk FkkA
39- esjs ifr lqcg 11 cts ukLrk djds nqdku tkrs Fks vkSj nksigj dks nkskbZ cts
[kkuk [kkus vkrs Fks vkSj lk+s rhu cts nqdku pys tkrs FksA jkr dks nqdku can dj 10
cts vkrs FksA
40- esjs ifr ls ?kj esa jgus ij ckrfpr gksrk FkkA
41- genksuksa jkr esa lksus ds dejs esa 11-00 cts lqcg 6-00 cts rd lkFk esa jgrs FksA
42- genksuksa ds chp esa lgokl genksuksa dh ethZ ls cjkcj gksrk FkkA
43- geyksxksa ds chp xM+k gksus ds ckotwn eSa [kkuk vius ifr ds iwjk ifjokj dks
f[kykrh Fkh ,oa lsok Hkh djrh FkhA
44- eSa o”kZ 2011 esa viuk ek;ds ugha xbZ Fkh] iqu% dgrh gS fd fnukad 25-05-13 dks
ifr ds lkFk ek;ds vkSjaxkckn pyh xbZ vkSj vHkh rd ek;ds esa gSaA
45- eSa [kw¡Vh dksVZ esa fuca/ku djkus vkbZ FkhA blds ckn eSa iqu% llqjky pyh xbZ FkhA
blds ckn eSa 34 lky vius llqjky esa jgh FkhA
46- esjk lkjk xguk ,oa leku esjs llqjky esa gSaA
47- esjs ‘kknh esa dksbZ Hkh fofM;ksa fjdkWafMax ugha gqbZ FkhA iqu% dgrh gS fd fofM;ksa
fjdksZfMax gqbZ FkhA llqjky ,oa ek;ds nksuksa txgksa ij fofM;ksa fjdkWafMax gqvk FkkA migkj
esa fn;k x;k lkeku dk fofM;ksa fjdksZfMax gqvk Fkk blds vykos esjs firk tks lkeku fn,
gSa mldk fjdksZfMax ugha gqvk FkkA lkjk lkeku ‘kknh ds le; gh xkM+h ls vk;k FkkA
48- esjs firk dk NksVk feBkbZ dk nqdku gSA esjs firk dk vkenuh eghuk esa fdruk gSa]
eSa ugha tkurh gw¡A
vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds vuqjks/k ij fnukad 26-03-18 dks ‘ks”k izfrijh{k.k
gsrq fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA

i+h lgh ik;s ys[kkfir
uhrq nsoh
Sd/-

17-3-18
vij l U;k;k/kh’k]
[kwWaVh
fnukad 17-03-18
11

FORM OF HEADING OF DEPOSITION
M.T.S. Case No. 270/13
Deposition of witness No……..DW3……….for the ……….Opposit
Party………….Age about…………………32 Years……………taken
on solemn affirmartion on the……………………..09.. day
of…………………vizSy…………………2018………………..My name is
………..uhrq xqIrk…………………………………………………………………………….
I am, son/daughter/wife of…………Jh fcjtw izlkn
………………………………………………………My age is ……………………….32
years, I am religion………………….fgUnq………………………..My nationality
is………Hkkjrh;…………..and belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.
My home is at Mauza……bLyke Vksyh th0 Vh0 jksM vkSjaxkckn……Police
Station…..vkSjaxkckn…………….District……….vkSjaxkckn] fcgkj ………………….
I reside at present in Mauza……….bLyke Vksyh th0 Vh0 jksM
vkSjaxkckn…………Police Station………..vkSjaxkckn………..District………
vkSjaxkckn] fcgkj………..Where I am ………..x`g.kh…………….
‘kiFki dh izfrijh{k.k

LFkx.k ds ckn iqu% izfrijh{k.k
49- genksuksa ds chp lgokl dsoy jkr esa ;k ,d ;k nks ckj gksrk Fkk D;ksafd fnu ds
esjs ifr nqdku pykus tkrs FksA
50- genksuksa ds chp ‘kknh ds ckn lgokl eghuk esa 0810 fnu NksM+dj gksrk FkkA
51- iz’u ;g laca/k yxkrkj fdrus o”kksZa rd pyk
mRrj tc rd eSa llqjky esa jgh ;g laca/k esjs ifr ds lkFk lkekU; jgrk Fkka
iz’u vkidk egkokjh gksrk gS Dyh;j gksrk gSa ;k ugha
mRrj esjk egkokjh gksrk gSa fdarq Dyh;j ugha gksrk gSA
iz’u vkidk egkokjh fdrus fnuksa rd gksrk gS
mRrj nkspkj fnuksa rdA
iz’u egkokjh ds ckn lgokl gksrk Fkk
mRrj gkWaA
iz’u vkidk dHkh xHkZ Bgjk
mRrj ugha] D;ksafd ;g Åij okys ds gkFk esa gSA
iz’u xHkZ ugha Bgjus ds fo”k; esa D;k dHkh vki MkWDVj ds ikl bykt gsrq xbZ]
mRrj esjs ifr dHkh eqs MkWDVj ds ikl ugha ys x, bykt ds fy,] cfYd os eqs
vksk xq.kh ds ikl ys tkrs FksA os eqs tcju vksk xq.kh ds ikl ys tkrs FksA
iz’u dkSu vksk ds ikl ys x, Fks
mRrj vksk dk uke eqs ugha ekyqe fdarq xksfoUniqj dh vksj nsgkr esa eqs ys tkrs
FksA dgkWa ys tkrs Fks eqs ugha ekyqe fdarq eqs ogkWa tkus esa Mj yxrk FkkA
12

iz’u xkao ds vanj lkeqnkf;d Hkou esa xkao dk uke fy[kk gksrk gSA vki xkao dk
uke ns[kh ;k ugha] tgkWa vkidks ys tk;k x;k Fkk
mRrj ,slh ckr ugha gS fd lHkh xkao dk uke fy[kk gksrk gSA eSa ugha tkurh
gw¡ fdeqs fdl xkao esa ys tk;k x;k FkkA
iz’u 10-1-05 dks ukxjey eksnh lsok lnu jkaph vius vYVªklkmaM djkbZ Fkh ;k
ugha
mRrj ughaA
iz’u 10-1-05 dks ukxjey eksnh lsok lnu jkaph esa djk;s x, tkap ds ckcr izLrqr
MkWaDVj dh iphZ dh Nk;k izfr ds ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS
mRrj eqs bldh tkudkjh ugha gSA
iz’u vkosnd dk dguk gS fd vkidks cPpk nkuh ugha gS
mRrj ,slh ckr ugha gSa] ;g xyr vkjksi gSA
iz’u vkosnd dk dguk gSa fd vHkh vkids lkFk gkykr brus [kjkc gSa fd nksuksa ,d
lkFk ugha jg ldrs gS vkSj oSokfgd thou dk;e ugha j[k ldrs gS
mRrj ,slh ckr ugha gSa] eSa vius ifr ds lkFk jguk pkgrh gw¡A os gh eqs ugha j[kuk
pkgrs gSA
iz’u vkosnd dk dguk gSa fd vkidk muds lkFk jgus ls nksuksa esa ls fdlh ,d ds
tku dk [krjk gSa
mRrj ,slh ckr ugha gSa] eSa vius ifr ds lkFk dkQh [kq’k jgrh Fkh fdrqa ifr ds
ifjokj okyksa ds dkj.k esjk ifjokj VwV jgk gSA
iz’u D;k vki vius ifr ds ifjokj okyksa ij wBk dsl dh Fkh ;k ugha
mRrj ,slh ckr ugha gSa] cfYd muds ifjokj okys eqs o”kZ 2009 esa izrkfM+r djrs Fks
blfy, eSa dsl dh FkhA
iz’u vkosnd dk dguk gS fd og vkids lkFk dHkh [kq’k ugha jgk gSa vkSj vki muds
ifjokj okyksa dks ges’kk nq%[k nsrh FkhA
mRrj ,slh ckr ugha gSA
iz’u vki vafre :i ls dc vius ifr dk ?kj NksM+h FkhA
mRrj eSa vius ifr dk ?kj ugha NksM+h Fkh cfYd esjs ifr eqs Lo;a esjs ek;ds igq¡pk
fn, FksA

i+h ,oa lgh ik;s ys[kkfir
uhrq nsoh
Sd/-

9-4-18
vij l U;k;k/kh’k]
[kwWaVh
fnukad 9-4-18″

15. It is only after thorough cross-examination of the respondent/wife
the petition was filed on 09.04.2018 i.e., on the same date when her
cross-examination was concluded and as such it is after thought and
when nothing has come out in the cross-examination of the
13

respondent/wife in order to fill up the lacuna, the petition has been
filed under Order XXXII-A Rule 5 and as such the same cannot be
said to be a bone fide approach of the petitioner and in view
thereof, the judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
cases of
Sharda vs. Dharmpal (supra) and Lalit Kishore vs.
Meeru Sharma (supra) are not applicable.

16. It also needs to refer herein that this Court has directed the learned
counsel for the petitioner to produce the medical report, reference
of which has been made in the writ petition wherein it has been
stated that the respondent/wife has been treated in the hospital and
therefore, the matter was adjourned vide order dated 01st April,
2019 but no such report has been produced by the petitioner,
although, a copy of the scan report dated 10.01.2005 has been
produced but the same is illegible so the question would be that
even accepting the said report of the year 2005 is against the
respondent/wife then why this divorce petition has been filed at a
belated stage when a criminal case has been instituted in the year
2008, so the application filed by the petitioner is after thought and
to fill up the lacuna.

17. This Court after going across the finding recorded by the trial Court
is of the view that no error has been committed rather the trial
Court after taking into consideration the factual aspect and more
particularly after perusing the cross-examination of the
respondent/wife has rightfully passed the order, therefore, the same
does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power
conferred under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

18. This Court also intends to go through the scope of Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Dealing with the scope of
Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini
Shyam Shetty Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patii, reported in (2010)
8 SCC 329 has been pleased to hold therein regarding the scope of
Article 227 which relates to the supervisory powers of the High
Courts and by taking aid of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
14

Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalmia Jain
Airways Ltd. Vrs. Sukumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951
Calcutta 193, wherein it has been laid down that
Article 227 of the
Constitution of India does not vest the High Court with limit less
power which may be exercised at the court’s discretion to remove
the hardship of particular decisions. The power of superintendence
confers power of a known and well recognized character and should
be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character.
In general words, the High Court’s power of superintendence is a
power to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of the
authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they
do it in a legal manner.

19. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there
has been;

(a) An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a court
or tribunal; or

(b) gross abuse of jurisdiction; or

(c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in courts or
tribunals.

20. Further, in the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken
aid of a judgment rendered in the case of Mani Nariman
Daruwala Vrs. Phiroz N. Bhatena, reported in (1991) 3 SCC
141 wherein it has been laid down that in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of
an inferior court or tribunal only in a case where there is no
evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come
to the conclusion which the court or tribunal has come to.

21. The Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that except to this limited
extent the High court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding
of facts.

22. Further, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
15

case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. Pratapsing
Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 it has
been laid down that the High Court under
Article 227 cannot assume
unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong
decisions. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty
and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice.

23. It has been laid down at paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment
that the jurisdiction under
Article 227 is not original nor is it
appellable. This jurisdiction of superintendence under
Article 227 is
for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Therefore, the
powers conferred under
Article 226 and 227 are separate and
distinct and operate in different fields. Another distinction between
these two jurisdictions is that under
Article 226 the High Court
normal annuls or quashes an order or proceedings but in exercise of
its jurisdiction under
Article 227, the High Court, apart from
annulling the proceeding, can also substitute the impugned order by
the order which the inferior tribunal should have made.

24. It has further been laid down regarding the powers to be exercised
by the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The
High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence, can
interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate
to it within the bounds of its authority, in order to ensure that law is
followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which
is vested with them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction
which is vested in them. Apart from that, High Court can interfere in
exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a
patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest
failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been
flouted.

25. In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot
interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because
another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts
16

subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction
has to be very sparingly exercised.

26. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and accordingly stands
dismissed.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Saurabh

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2019 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh