F.A. No. 573 of 2014. Case: Shivesh Kumar Jha Vs Minu Jha. Jharkhand High Court
| Case Number | F.A. No. 573 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Nitin Kumar Pasari and Sudhir Kumar Singh, Advocates and For Respondents: Indrajit Sinha and A.K. Sah, Advocates |
| Judges | Harish Chandra Mishra and Dr. S.N. Pathak, JJ. |
| Issue | Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(ia), 9 |
| Judgement Date | February 15, 2017 |
| Court | Jharkhand High Court |
Judgment:
-
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the sole respondent. Both the parties are also present in Court in person.
-
The plaintiff appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 22nd of August, 2014, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, in Title Matrimonial Suit No. 228 of 2009, whereby the suit, filed by the appellant husband for dissolution of marriage between the parties, by a decree of divorce, under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been dismissed by the learned Court below on contest.
-
The facts of the case lie in a short compass. Both the parties were married, according to the Hindu rites and customs on 11.2.2008. Soon after the marriage, i.e., on 13.2.2008, father of the plaintiff appellant died due to cancer, and as such the holy rituals of Chaturthi, which is performed in the community of the parties, could not be performed, and the Bidai of the respondent to her matrimonial home, also could not be done. According to the plaintiff appellant's case, after the death of his father, it was agreed in his family that the plaintiff appellant will be getting the appointment on compassionate basis, whereas the other death-cum-pensionary benefits shall be left for his mother and others in the family. This arrangement was not liked by the father of the respondent, and he was having a greedy eye at the death-cum-pensionary benefits of the father of the plaintiff appellant. It is alleged that on 3.6.2008, while the plaintiff appellant was at his father-in-law's place, there was a hot discussion between the parties, over this issue, in which the respondent wife hurled slipper, which hit the chest of the plaintiff appellant. It is again alleged that on 8.7.2008, the respondent and her father came to the matrimonial home along with 5-6 unknown persons and assaulted the mother and bhagini of the respondent and ransacked the household articles. The matter was reported to the local police, which did not take any step, but an informatory petition being Misc. Case No. 1846 of 2008 was filed in that regard. Thereafter the plaintiff appellant filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, against the respondent wife, being Title Matrimonial Suit No. 375 of 2008, on 14.7.2008, in the competent Court. It is also alleged that the father of the respondent, who is an advocate in the local Court had also misbehaved with the plaintiff appellant. The matter was sent for conciliation between the parties to the Mediation Centre...
To continue reading
Request your trial