MISC. APPEAL No.679 OF 2009 --------- Against the judgment and order dated 21st of August 2006 Passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai, in Matrimonial ( Divorce) Case No. 49 of 2001 --------- SRI SANJEEV RANJAN VERMA----------------------Appellant Versus SRIMATI ARUNA VERMA---------------------------Respondent ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Keshav Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate Bhubneshar Pd. Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Sushil Kr. Singh, Advocate Tulsi Narain Pd., Advocate. ------------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA Shiva Kirti Singh & B.P. Verma, JJ This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st of August 2006 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Begusarai, whereby Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 49 of 2001 filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts may be noted in brief. Marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu Rites on 30.6.1998 and from the Wedlock a son was born on 10.4.2000. The name of the son is Rohit Ranjan Verma and now he is more than ten years of age. Matrimonial suit No. 26 of 2001 was filed by the appellant on 23.7.2001 seeking relief through a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. On 14.8.2001 a criminal complaint case bearing No. 1064 (C) of 2001 was lodged by the appellant against the respondent, her brother and some others under section 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. On 6.12.2001 the aforesaid Matrimonial Suit No. 26 of 2001 was withdrawn and on 13.12.2001 the - 2 - present case was instituted as Matrimonial Divorce case No. 49 of 2001 seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that the respondent wife had treated the appellant with cruelty and had deserted him for continuous period of two years before filing of the suit. 3. In support of allegation of cruelty the appellant made allegations that the respondent humiliated him as to why he was unemployed and threatened to part with the company for such reason only. He also alleged that she was ambitious and wanted the appellant to separate from his parents with whom the respondent did not behave properly. On notice the respondent appeared in the suit and contested the case by filing written statement wherein she denied the aforesaid allegations. She stated that initially her relation with the husband was good but after October 1998 her husband and his family members started pressurizing her to bring more dowry and during the pregnancy itself ill treatment started by not providing nutritious diet. She tolerated to the extent possible because her father is dead and she is dependant upon her mother and brothers. She has pleaded also in her written statement that the appellant is under influence of his parents and, therefore, he always misbehaved with her and also lodged a criminal complaint case No. 1064(C) of 2001. 4. On behalf of the appellant only two witnesses were examined. The appellant himself appeared as P.W.1 and his father was examined as P.W.2. The learned trial court looked for corroboration in respect of the allegations of cruelty made by the appellant but he did not find any corroboration. Even the deposition of P.W.2 as discussed in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment discloses that in the eyes of the father of - 3 - appellant the respondent is a cultured lady and knows her limits as a daughter-in-law. On proper consideration of entire facts, evidence and the circumstances the trial court has come to a finding that the appellant failed to prove the allegations of cruelty against his wife, the respondent herein. In order to persuade us to take a different view, learned counsel for the appellant highlighted the deposition of P.W.1, the appellant to the effect that he was humiliated by the respondent by describing him unemployed and threatening to leave him. There is no dispute that the appellant was unemployed whereas the respondent herself is a graduate. She had already got in the family way and if she wanted her husband to get suitably employed, such utterances by a wife cannot amount to an act of cruelty justifying a decree for divorce. In our considered view the issue of cruelty has been rightly decided by the learned court below and requires no interference. 5. By way of subsequent development, it was brought to the notice of the learned court below that respondent’s brother was allegedly involved in a case under section 307 of the Indian penal Code in which father of the appellant had received injuries. At the time of passing of the judgment & order under appeal the said case was pending but admittedly now that case has been concluded and after trial the brother of the respondent has been acquitted. Hence the subsequent development also cannot furnish a ground to the appellant for seeking divorce. 6. So far as the issue of desertion is concerned, the discussion made by the learned trial court below in paragraph 11 shows that the case pleaded in the plaint alleging desertion after August 1999 was contradicted by the appellant in his deposition that till the filing of the - 4 - application for divorce i.e. till December, 2001 he along with his wife resided in a house at Begusarai and during that period they also went to their ancestors house. In view of such admission by the appellant, the learned court below has rightly held that the appellant has failed to prove desertion by his wife. 7. As a result of aforesaid discussion and findings , we are constrained to hold that the appellant is not entitled to seek a decree of divorce as he has failed to prove either of the two grounds pleaded in the application for divorce. Accordingly this appeal fails and is dismissed but without costs. (Shiv Kirti Singh, J) ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) Patna High Court The 9th Aug. 2010 Rahman/(NAFR)