Patna High Court
Ram Pravesh Kumar vs Amrita Kumari on 17 January, 2025
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.363 of 2019
======================================================
Ram Pravesh Kumar, son of Lal Babu Sah @ Rajesh Bhushan, resident of
Village-Naranga, P.S.-Bela, District-Sitamadhi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Amrita Kumari, wife of Ram Pravesh Kumar, resident of Village-Naranga,
P.S.-Bela, District-Sitamadhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH)
Date : 17-01-2025
Heard the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section
19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 impugning the
judgment dated 29.03.2019 passed by learned Principal
Judge, Family Court, Sitamarhi in Matrimonial Case No.
56 of 2013, whereby the matrimonial suit, preferred by
the appellant-husband, for a decree of divorce, on
dissolution of marriage, on the ground of cruelty and
desertion, has been dismissed.
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
2/19
3. The case of the appellant-husband as per
petition filed before the Family Court is that the marriage
of the appellant-husband with respondent-wife was
solemnized on 11.03.2012 as per Hindu Rights and
Customs in a temple. After marriage, on 13.03.2012, the
appellant-husband went to work in the Indian Railways
and his wife-respondent started staying at her
matrimonial house. On 20.06.2012 when the appellant-
husband came to his house on leave, he found that the
behavior of the respondent with her mother-in-law and
father-in-law was not cordial. She used to abuse and
quarrel with them on trivial issues and always threatened
to commit suicide and implicate family members in a
murder case. Ultimately, father of the appellant-husband
filed an application before the S.H.O, Bela, about the
behaviour of the respondent and for their protection. The
appellant-husband also tried to convince his wife-
respondent but all his efforts went in vein. On
06.08.2012
, in the absence of the appellant-husband, the
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
3/19
respondent called her father and uncle and secretly went
to her parental house at night with all her belongings, for
which the appellant-husband had filed a complaint before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 08.08.2012 which is
pending. The respondent, in the meanwhile filed a case
under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal code against the
appellant-husband and other in-laws family members.
The appellant-husband also claimed that respondent is in
illicit relationship with a person before marriage. She also
became pregnant before marriage with another person
and when her parents came to know about it, her father
wanted to marry the appellant-husband who was working
in Indian Railways. The appellant’s father was aware of
the character of the respondent due to which he flatly
refused to marry his son with the respondent. Father of
the respondent, thereafter filed a complaint before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, falsely alleging against the
appellant-husband that she had become pregnant with
the appellant-husband and got her married to the
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
4/19
appellant-husband by applying criminal force. The
respondent is living in her parents’ house since
06.08.2012 and regularly meets the person with whom
she had illegal relationship and mentally harasses the
appellant-husband due to which it is difficult to keep her
with him and there is no future for him. It was therefore,
prayed to pass an order for the divorce in favour of the
appellant-husband.
4. After filing of the above case, the
O.P./respondent appeared in response to the
summon/notice issued by the Court and filed her
reply/written statement.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent that before marriage, a case of rape was filed
against the appellant-husband and the marriage was
performed in a temple after compromise in the aforesaid
case. She admitted that it was a love marriage between
the appellant-husband and the respondent. After
marriage, the appellant-husband went to his place of
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
5/19
posting and she started living her matrimonial house
where she was tortured by her in-laws-family members.
The respondent has filed a case of harassment against her
in-laws and she has also filed a case of maintenance
against her husband in which an order was passed to pay
Rs. 5000/- per month. She denies that she used to abuse
his in-laws-family members and threatened to commit
suicide. She also denies to have any illicit relationship
with anyone. The appellant-husband admits that she still
ready to live with the appellant-husband as husband and
wife.
6. On the basis of the rival contentions of both
the parties, following issues were framed in this case by
the learned Principal Judge, Family Court:-
(i) Whether the appeal as filed is
maintainable ?
(ii) Whether the appellant has got
valid cause of action for the appeal ?
(iii) Whether the appeal is barred
by law of limitation ?
(iv) Whether the appeal is barred
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
6/19by the principles of wavier, acquiescence
and stoppel ?
(v) Whether the marriage of the
parties be declared void in favour of the
appellant as against the respondent and a
decree of nullity be granted ?
(vi) Whether the appellant is
entitled for any relief or reliefs as prayed
for?.
7. In order to prove his case, the appellant-
husband has examined three witnesses namely Rajesh
Bhushan @ Lal Babu (P.W. 1), Ram Pravesh Kumar
(P.W. 2) and Ramswarth Sah (P.W. 3) before the Family
Court in support of his petition. No documentary evidence
has been adduced on behalf of the appellant-husband.
8. P.W. 1 Rajesh Bhushan @ Lal Babu is the
father of the appellant-husband who has deposed that
respondent-wife has filed a case under Sections 376,
313/511 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant-
husband and marriage was solemnized after compromise
in the aforesaid case. He further deposed that
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
7/19
respondent-wife has illicit relationship with many persons
though he has not specifically named anyone. This
witness has also deposed that his son-appellant works in
Railways. This witness further deposed that appellant-
husband has performed second marriage but
subsequently he denied.
9. P.W. 2 is the appellant-husband himself who
has deposed that he works as Signal Teli Communication
in Gwalior N.C.R, Railway and the respondent-wife has
filed a maintenance case in which he was directed to pay
Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-
wife. Though he accepted that he did not appear in the
aforesaid case in spite of order of the Court below to
appear in person. He deposed that he earns Rs. 42000/-
per month as salary. This witness further deposed that
after marriage he went to his place of job, thereafter, the
respondent-wife used to abuse his family members and
threatened them that she would commit suicide. He does
not mention the date of settlement with the respondent-
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
8/19
wife and also clarifies that the rape case was earlier filed
by the respondent-wife against him and that has been
settled on the basis of compromise. He has deposed that
he did not try to take the respondent-wife to his
workplace and neither he has given respondent’s name in
his GPF and other funds. He has denied his second
marriage and has also denied the suggestion that he
wants to divorce respondent-wife after marrying for the
second time due to greed of dowry.
10. P.W. 3 is Rameshwar Sah who has supported
the claim of the appellant-husband and in his cross-
examination, he admitted to have come to the Court for
evidence without being summoned and also admitted that
he never met the respondent-wife.
11. During trial, the respondent-wife has also
adduced three witnesses namely Amrita Kumari (P.W. 1),
the respondent herself, Rajkishore Sao (P.W. 2) and Braj
Kishore Das (P.W. 3).
12. P.W. 1 Amrita Kumari is the respondent-wife
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
9/19
herself who has deposed that before marriage, a case of
rape was filed against the appellant-husband and she
became pregnant due to rape and after marriage, the
appellant-husband gave her medicine to abort the child
and no separate case of abortion was filed and after
marriage, on the request of the appellant-husband and his
mother, she made a compromise and withdrew the case
and also admitted that the marriage was solemnized by
garlanding each other where family members and
relatives of both sides were present. She admitted that it
was a love marriage between the appellant-husband and
the respondent-wife. She admitted that they had
established physical relations innumerable times from
2009 to 2012 on promise of marriage by the appellant-
husband. She admitted that the marriage was
solemonized with the consent of the guardians of both the
parties. She admits that after marriage, the appellant-
husband went to his place of posting and she started
living at her matrimonial house. She admits that there is
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
10/19
no physical relationship between them after 2012. She
further deposed that she filed a case of harassment
against her in-laws and she has also filed a case of
maintenance against her husband in which an order was
passed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month. She denies that she
used to abuse his in-laws family members and threatened
to commit suicide. She also denies to have any illicit
relationship with anyone. In her cross examination, she
admitted that on 09.07.2017, her husband abused and
beat her in the court premises, but she did not file any
case for it. Further she has also admitted that she does
not know with whom her husband was married. She
denies the allegation that her jewellery and clothes were
taken away and she also denies the allegation that she
does not want to live with the appellant-husband. She
also voluntarily stated that if her husband takes her away
right now, she is ready to go with him but he does not
take her.
13. P.W. 2 Rajkishore Sao is the father of the
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
11/19
respondent who has reiterated the same facts in cross-
examination which is stated in the cross examination of
P.W. 1.
14. P.W. 3 Braj Kishore Das is the uncle of the
respondent-wife who has deposed about the love
marriage between the parties, the rape case and the
marriage after reconciliation through the police station.
He deposed that after 7 days of marriage, the appellant-
husband went to his place of posting and since then the
respondent-wife never went to meet the appellant-
husband. He accepted that he was accused in the cases
lodged by the father of the appellant-husband. He also
denies that respondent-wife used to abuse her in-laws
family members.
15. Learned counsel for the appellant-husband,
however, assails the impugned judgment on the ground
that learned Family Court has not properly appreciated
the evidence adduced by the appellant-husband and
erroneously dismissed the petition finding no ground
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
12/19
proved. He submits that as per the evidence, the
appellant-husband has proved that the respondent-wife
has committed cruelty against him because she has
deprived him of his marital cohabition by going back to
her parental house. He also submits that as per the
evidence on record, the appellant-husband has proved
that the wife-respondent has also illicit relationship with a
villager and such relationship is a good ground for
divorce.
16. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent that the allegation of illegal relationship of the
respondent with another person is false and baseless. In
fact, the respondent-wife used to go to the appellant’s
village for tuition, during this period, the appellant-
husband fell in love with the respondent-wife and on
promise to marry, he established physical relationship
with the respondent due to which the respondent-wife
became pregnant. In the meanwhile, the appellant-
husband got a job in the Railways and after getting job,
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
13/19
he refused to marry with the respondent-wife for which
respondent’s father with the help of panchayat made
several attempts to get the matter reconciled but
appellant’s father denied to marry his son with the
respondent. Ultimately, the respondent-wife filed
Complaint Case No. 336 of 2012 before the Court, as a
result of which, the appellant-husband, fearing the danger
of loosing his job and imprisonment got married with the
respondent-wife on 11.03.2012 in a temple in the
presence of relatives and well wishers of both the parties.
After marriage, the appellant-husband did not take the
respondent-wife with him at his place of job. The
respondent-wife was thereafter tortured for demand of
Maruti Alto car and on not getting the money, the in-laws
family members locked her in a room, stopped giving food
and water. They anyhow wanted to drive the respondent-
wife out of matrimonial home and ultimately on
01.09.2012 they took away all her stridhan and driven
her out of the house. The father of the appellant-husband
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
14/19
filed an application before the S.H.O, Bela Police Station
on 08.07.2012 alleging that respondent-wife used to
torture and abuse her in-laws. The appellant-husband has
not brought on record any proof with regard to illegal
relationship of the respondent with anyone. The
respondent-wife has also filed Maintenance Case No. 113
of 2012 whereby the appellant-husband was directed to
pay Rs. 5000/- per month on 12.01.2017 but the
appellant-husband has not complied the order of the
Court below. Thereafter, Execution Case No. 1 of 2018
was filed whereby the Executing Court had issued notice
to the appellant-husband for recovery of arrears amount
of Rs. 3,95,000/- but the appellant-husband was not
appearing in the said case but he was making pairvi in the
present divorce case. After filing of this divorce petition in
2019, from May, 2021, the appellant-husband is paying
Rs. 5000/- per month but he has not paid the due amount
as directed by the Executing Court in Execution Case No.
1 of 2018.
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
15/19
17. In pursuance to the direction of this Court,
both the appellant-husband as well as the respondent-
wife appeared before this Court in person.
18. In view of the rival contentions and the
arguments adduced on behalf of the appellant as well as
the evidences brought on record, the main points for
determination in this appeal are as follows:-
(i) Whether the appellant is entitled to
the relief sought for in his appeal.
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna is just,
proper and sustainable/tenable in the eyes of
law.
19. After perusal of the materials available on
record and consideration of submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellant-husband as well as learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife, we
find that so far as, the ground of cruelty for taking divorce
is concerned, the word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined in
specific words and language in the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, but it is well settled position that cruelty is such of
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
16/19
character and conduct as cause in mind of other spouse a
reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful and
injurious for him to live with the respondent-wife.
20. It is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
leading case of Samar Ghose vs. Jaya Ghose reported in
2007 (4) SCC 511 that a sustained unjustifiable conduct
and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical
and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment
complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension
must be very grave, substantial and weighty. More trivial
irritations, quarrel, normal wear and tear of the married
live which happens in day-to-day live would not be
adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental
cruelty.
21. In regard to the allegation of depriving the
appellant-husband of the conjugal life by the respondent-
wife, it is relevant to find that the appellant-husband has
himself pleaded/deposed that they lived like husband and
wife during the stay at her matrimonial house and it is
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
17/19
also found that when she went back to her parental
house, he has not taken any legal steps for restitution of
conjugal rights by filing petition under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act.
22. So far as ground of cruelty is concerned, it
clearly transpires that appellant-husband has failed to
prove the cruel behaviour of the respondent towards him
and his family members by the strength of cogent,
relevant and reliable evidence, while burden of prove of
cruelty rests upon the appellant-husband of this case,
because, he has sought relief of divorce on the basis of
cruel behaviour of the respondent towards him.
Furthermore, certain flimsy act or omission or using some
threatening and harsh words may occasionally happen in
the day-to-day conjugal life of a husband and wife to
retaliate the other spouse but that cannot be a
justified/sustainable ground for taking divorce. Some
trifling utterance or remarks or mere threatening of one
spouse to other cannot be construed as such decree of
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
18/19
cruelty, which is legally required to a decree of divorce.
The austerity of temper and behaviour, petulance of
manner and harshness of language may vary from man to
man born and brought up in different family background,
living in different standard of life, having their quality of
educational qualification and their status in society in
which they live.
23. As far as the allegation of illicit relationship of
the respondent-wife with one of her villagers is
concerned, the appellant-husband has neither impleaded
the alleged adulterer having illicit relationship with his
wife nor there is any circumstantial or direct evidence to
prove the alleged illicit relationship with the adulterer. The
deposition of the witnesses in regard to alleged illicit
relationship at best amounts to suspicion and not proof.
24. Hence, we find no merit in the present appeal
warranting any interference in the impugned judgment.
The Family Court has rightly dismissed the matrimonial
case of the appellant-husband seeking divorce.
Patna High Court MA No.363 of 2019 dt.17-01-2025
19/19
25. The present appeal is dismissed accordingly,
affirming the impugned judgment.
( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
Shageer/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 04/12/2024 Uploading Date 18/01/2025 Transmission Date N/A
[ad_1]
Source link