SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Rashmi Singh vs Arun Kumar Singh on 5 December, 2018

1

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

–Versus–

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
2

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
3

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?
4

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
5

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
6

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.

7

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.

8

Matrimonial Suit No. 56/01 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
9

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
10

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
ownself, 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
11

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
12

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
13

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.

FINDINGS

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
14

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 his
15

matrimonial 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.

I agree.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

NAFR
S.B.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation