KUMARI SANGITA RAY Vs. RAJIV RANJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

(2.) This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dtd. 31/10/2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 585 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned Family Court has allowed the divorce case filed by the respondent-husband under Sec. 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(3.) The case of the respondent-husband in brief is that the marriage between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband was solemnized on 21/6/1996 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Patna in presence of common well-wishers and relatives. After marriage the appellant-wife came to her Sasural and after staying for two days, she went to her Naihar with her brother and respondent no.2 and after passing of one year, the second marriage (Gauna) was performed and she returned with the respondent No. 1 at her matrimonial house and she stayed continuously for about four months. During her stay at her matrimonial house, respondent No. 2 came to meet the appellant-wife four or five times and without consent of the respondent-husband they went to see movie. It is further alleged that it was routine affairs of the appellant-wife and respondent No. 2 to go for movie and hither and thither without consent of the respondent-husband and when he made objection, the appellant-wife became very angry and threatened to eliminate him. In the meanwhile, out of the wedlock, a female child namely Veena Vadini born on 10/11/1997. After birth of child, the appellant-wife stayed at her matrimonial house for about four months and during this period, respondent No. 2 visited her matrimonial house. Thereafter, she went to her Naihar. Some days after staying at her Naihar, the appellant-wife went to the house of respondent No.2 at Jalapur without consent of the respondent-husband and returned at her matrimonial house after passing of two and half month and this time she became complete changed and always used filthy languages against the respondent-husband and his mother. On 26/9/2000, the appellant-wife gave birth of one male child namely, Rahul Kumar @ Vivek Raj at the hospital and again after staying for three-four months, she went to her Naihar without consent of the respondent-husband and when the respondent-husband went to his Sasural for Vidaigari of appellant-wife, he came to know that his wife is living in the house of respondent No.2. After birth of child the respondent-husband thought that the behaviour of the appellant-wife will change but she has not changed her behaviour, rather, it was deteriorated and ultimately on 3/6/2005 when the respondent-husband objected the said unsocial act of the appellant-wife with respondent No. 2, she by saying that "Ham Unke Bina Nahi Rah Sakte Hain, Agar Aap Mana Karoge to Ham Kirasan Tel Chidakar Aag Laga Lenge Aur Sabko Jail Bhej Denge burnt herself along with two children. The respondent-husband, thereafter admitted them in PMCH but unfortunately, in spite of much efforts and treatment, his minor daughter namely, Veena Vadini died due to burn injury. Due to much care and nursing by the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife cured and started living happily with respondent no.1. However, one day, she came in sentiment and fairly admitted in writing that she is habituated to establish physical relation with the respondent No. 2 from very beginning and that is why she burnt with daughter and son. After passing of fifteen days, the family members of the appellant-wife suddenly attacked the respondent No. 1 in his shop. He somehow saved his life with the help of the villagers and his family members. On 28/9/2006, the appellant-wife again fled away from her matrimonial house and lodged a false case bearing Digha P.S. Case No. 216 of 2006 under Ss. 498(A), 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code on 3/10/2006 against the respondent No. 1 and his mother at the instigation of respondent No. 2. In the aforesaid case, the respondent-husband was apprehended. The respondent-husband approached this Court. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 14/8/2007 has granted bail to the petitioner vide Cr. Misc. No. 27577 of 2007. It is further alleged that when the respondent- husband was enlarged on bail, the appellant-wife again lodged Digha P.S. Case No.180 of 2008 on 17/10/2008 against the respondent-husband under Ss. 341, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, however, during investigation, the case as against the appellant was not found true and final form was submitted by the police. The respondent-husband, in spite of all these events, tried his best to continue his matrimonial relationship with the appellant-wife but all his efforts went in vein since the appellant-wife did not agree to leave the respondent No. 2 and in that background, always abused, assaulted, humiliate the respondent-husband and tortured him on one pretext or another and ultimately left the society of the respondent- husband on 28/9/2006. Due to cruel behaviour of the appellant-wife the respondent-husband suffered mental and physical torture and seeing no alternate, he has filed this petition for grant of decree of divorce. Patna High Court MA No.1149 of 2018 dt.7/8/2025