AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Appellant-husband is before us being aggrieved by judgment dated 9th December, 2022 of the Family Court dismissing this petition for dissolution of the marriage. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on his behalf and submits, though in impugned judgment the Family Court said that the evidence was scanned but, actually it was not.
Mr. Mishra demonstrates from his client’s evidence on affidavit that soon after the marriage, solemnized on 17th June, 2003 at Choudwar Kalyan Mandap, Choudwar, respondent-wife left the matrimonial home saying it is impossible for her to reside in the remote rural area. This was stated in paragraph 2. Also stated in the paragraph were that respondent-wife refused to get intimate with him in the village (matrimonial home).
In paragraph 4 it was stated, on 17th November, 2003 due to illness of appellant’s mother, she was brought to his rented house at Choudwar. Respondent-wife came to know about presence of his mother in the rented house on 20th November, 2003. She and her family members forcibly drove him out from his rented house. Also stated in said paragraph are that respondent-wife became more vindictive on appellant-husband having filed application under section-9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution, to file complaint, registered as FIR against him and his relatives under section 498-A/323/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The trial Court convicted him with punishment and fine. There was confirmation in the criminal appeal filed by him. He then filed criminal revision (CRLREV no. 457 of 2013. There is subsisting interim order of stay in respect of the fine. Mr. Mishra submits, appellant-husband is out on bail. Respondent-wife then stayed with appellant-husband from 27th July, 2008 to 19th August, 2008 at Choudwar but thereafter respondent-wife left without giving information to him. On 22nd September, 2008 respondent-wife stated in conciliation cell arising out of C.P. case no.291 of 2005 that she will not resume as his wife. Also in that paragraph there is denial of having demanded dowry either in cash or otherwise. Mr. Mishra submits, in the cross-examination there is no denial of the statements.
Referring to deposition in cross-examination of respondent-wife in the Family Court Mr. Mishra relies on paragraphs 44, 45, 46, 49 and 54. In paragraph 45 respondent-wife admitted she, after 14 days of marriage went back to her hostel and resided there for 12 days. She returned to her matrimonial home thereafter. Since 20th July, 2003 till 20th November, 2003 she and appellant-husband resided in a rented house at Choudwar. They again resided together between 27th July and 19th August, 2008. She had filed complaint registered as FIR after two years of separation. It is because of her having filed so many cases and there being risk to her life she cannot reside with appellant-husband. She had filed writ petition protesting reinstatement of her husband in his job, dismissed with cost of ₹1,000/-.
On query from Court we have ascertained ext.‘B’ is judgment of the Trial Court (JMFC) convicting appellant-husband. Ext.‘E’ is appellate judgment dated 28th May, 2013 confirming the judgment in the appeal preferred by appellant-husband. We have perused the appellate judgment. We notice that the confirmation included acquittal of all other accused. Conviction was of appellant-husband only. He was concurrently found guilty of cruelty under section 498-A of IPC and section 4 under the Act of 1961. Naturally, other sections including section 34 IPC, of common intention, could not be found upon by reason of acquittal of all others.
We notice further from the appellate judgment, the confirmation of conviction under section 4 in the Act of 1961 was based on oral examination of respondent-wife to effect that ₹1,00,000/- was demanded and ₹50,000/- given pursuant to the demand. The judgment also records facts of recovery and seizure of dowry articles from the house of appellant-husband. We require assistance on dowry articles recovered as they do not appear to be part of the evidence before the Family Court.
Mrs. Jena learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-wife will be heard on adjourned date. Her client has liberty to produce the seizure list, which we will require for purpose of delivery of judgment in the appeal.
List on 8th April, 2024.
..………………………..