Bhenkat Raman Rana vs Menaka @ Payal Rana Vs

By The Bench.

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

Present appeal is assailed against the impugned judgment dated 30th April 2024 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Bolangir passed in C.P. (MAT) No.42 of 2022 wherein the prayer of the husband to grant divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been refused. The husband appellant filed the civil proceeding on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Three witnesses were examined from the side of the husband-Appellant and two witnesses were examined by the wife-Respondent. Several documents have been examined from the side of the appellant.

We have gone through the entire evidence adduced on record and the appreciation of the same by the learned trial court. As reveals, the learned trial court has made effort to appreciate every part of the evidence in its right perspective. Admittedly, the evidence as laid before the trial court hardly discloses a case by which it can be said the parties have no scope for reunion. The issues as emanates between the parties are absolutely trivial. One aspect which is noteworthy is the conduct of the Respondent wife who accommodated the Petitioner husband being in matrimony when the Petitioner husband was not in employment whereas soon after his engagement in a government service the Petitioner husband could not tolerate her conduct. The allegations brought on record as against the Respondent wife is vague and common in nature as would appear in every house hold as normal wear and tear. The so-called conversations between the husband and wife through WhatsApp would go to reveal that the Petitioner husband has clandestinely deleted most part of his messages leaving that of the wife only. Consequently, it cannot be taken adverse to the conduct of the wife. Even otherwise, it is reasonable to appreciate that the messages can be the outcome of an emotion resulting from the given circumstances and cannot be accepted to be compatible to the conduct of a person, particularly, in an eventuality the wife being away from the husband in a dicey situation where every minute of her conduct is under the scan of not only the matrimonial home but the parental home too. It is a situation she remains blank as she would not be in a position to put pressure on the parents nor could influence the matrimonial side. So, messages that might be the result of an outburst of her sentiment can’t be accepted as her normal conduct to utilize against her. No other evidence brought from the side of the Petitioner husband on the face of the counter challenge by the respondent wife can be said to have been made out a case of cruelty or desertion to allow the prayer for divorce. The decisions as cited by the learned counsel for the Appellant in the matters of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohli reported in MANU/SC/1387/2006; K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa reported in MANU/SC/0180/2013 and X Vs. Y reported in 2024 INSC 476, cannot in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand be applied in favour of the Appellant. In essence, we fail to find any substance in the allegations as to “cruelty” by the husband-Appellant as ground sufficient to grant the divorce. The allegations with regard to desertion against the wife-Respondent are also found unsubstantiated. In the better interest of the parties keeping in view their age and the nature of dispute it is expected that the parties would continue their effort for reunion.

Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the result the appeal is dismissed.

........……………………………….