Nand Lal Prasad vs Ranju Kumari

D.N. Patel, J

I.A. No. 2303 of 2018

Present interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 11 days in preferring this First Appeal.

Having heard counsels for the both sides and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, it appears that there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay.

In view of these facts, we, hereby, condone the delay in preferring this First Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2303 of 2018 is allowed and disposed of.

First Appeal No. 284 of 2017

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 8th August, 2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 34 of 2011 dismissing the Matrimonial Suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant. Dissolution of marriage between plaintiff and respondent was sought on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

The short fact of the case is that Nand Lal Prasad, plaintiff and respondent Ranju Kumari were married on 26th April, 2007 as per Hindu rites and customs at Bokaro in the State of Jharkhand. After solemnization of marriage, both parties lived as husband and wife and one son was born out of the wed-lock. The further case is that as the wife was not in a mood to live in a joint family, started making allegation against the plaintiff/appellant being an impotent. It is alleged that respondent was having affairs with another man. The plaintiff/appellant made efforts for restoration and continuance of marriage, but, respondent left his company. Her attitude was also not good towards the plaintiff and with her in-laws, therefore, prayed for decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

Ms. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff/appellant submitted that he being husband faced torture as he was called 'impotent' by the wife and the mother-in-law which amounts to cruelty. The court below did not consider that the respondent had deserted the appellant and was having extra marital relationship with other person. The court below has not considered the case in its right perspective.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the judgment, it appears that the court below has framed six issues which are as follows :-

(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Whether there is any valid cause of action for filing this suit?

(iii) Whether the respondent has treated petitioner-plaintiff and his family members with cruelty after solemnization of marriage?

(iv) Whether the respondent has deserted the petitioner/ plaintiff continuously for a period of two years since February, 2009?

(v) Whether the petitioner/plaintiff has extra marital relation with a lady namely Kiran Kumari?

(vi) Whether the Petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to get relief as prayed for by him?

It further appears that the court below after consideration of the oral and documentary evidences adduced on behalf of both the sides, came to the finding that plaintiff/appellant has failed to prove the grounds of desertion and cruelty as leveled against the wife/respondent and all the documents exhibited on behalf of the petitioner were prepared after thought and after filing of this case has no substance in the eye of law.

Looking to the evidences on record, the respondent has not deserted the petitioner, rather it is the petitioner, himself who deserted the respondent. The petitioner could not be able to make out a specific case of cruelty committed by the respondent/wife. The deposition of the petitioner does not suggest the existence of any grave or weighty conduct on the part of the respondent which could make it impossible for him to live with the respondent. It is not a case of irretrievable break down of marriage because since beginning the respondent is ready to live with the petitioner as deposed in her examination-in-chief in Para 8, but, the petitioner is adamant for not keeping his wife (respondent) with him and just trying to take advantage of his own wrong. The petitioner has deposed in Para 34 of his cross-examination that ABHI MERI PATNI MERE SATH RAHNA CHAHEGI TO BHI MEIN USE NEHI RAKHUNGA. (Even if my wife wants to stay with me, I will not keep her with me).

There is allegation that respondent has illicit relationship with a local leader, but, that person was neither impleaded as party in the case nor adultery could be proved by the petitioner. Bare allegations is not proof. Therefore, the entire allegations made by the petitioner in the complaint has not been proved by the petitioner and his wife. Thus appellant (original plaintiff) has failed to prove cruelty and desertion by wife.

As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this First Appeal as no error has been committed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in deciding Matrimonial Suit No.34 of 2011, vide judgment and order dated 8th August, 2017, because looking to the evidences on record neither the cruelty nor desertion, as alleged by this appellant, has been proved.

As there is no substance in this First Appeal, the same is, hereby, dismissed.