Allahabad Excessive Court docket dismisses IPS officer’s spouse’s attraction in opposition to divorce


The Allahabad Excessive Court docket has dominated that making false complaints in opposition to partner and levelling wild allegations in opposition to in-laws quantities to psychological cruelty whereas dismissing a petition.

The Division Bench of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV handed this order whereas listening to an attraction filed by Gayatri Mohapatra.

The info of the case are that the defendant–appellant/spouse married with the plaintiff–respondent/husband on 10.06.1990 as per Hindu rites and rituals.

The plaintiff–respondent is an IPS officer whereas the defendant–appellant holds an MBBS diploma. The daddy of the plaintiff–respondent was in service of the Metal Authority of India, Raurkela whereas father of the defendant–appellant was Extra Director Common of Police, Orissa and her mom has promoted an organization generally known as JBS Capacitors Pvt Ltd, Bhubaneshwar.

Initially, the defendant–appellant joined the service within the Well being Division, Aligarh, however after three or 4 months she left it. She then grew to become a director in her mom’s firm. Aparajita Issan Narayan was born on 05.06.1991 from the wedlock of the plaintiff and the defendant at SCB Medical Faculty, Cuttack.

It seems that disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant arose even earlier than their son was born which led to varied incidents. In the end the plaintiff–respondent filed a case underneath Part 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, within the Court docket of Principal Decide Household Court docket, Meerut, for divorce.

The defendant–appellant filed a written assertion wherein she denied allegations. The plaintiff–respondent filed examination-in-chief. In his examination-in-chief, he affirmed the plaint model. He produced himself in proof for cross–examination and was cross-examined by the defendant–appellant. The plaintiff–respondent additionally produced in proof Golak Bihari Panda, who’s his father.

The plaintiff–respondent additionally filed a further affidavit in proof wherein he additional narrated sure info to help psychological cruelty by the defendant–appellant.

In proof, copies of First Data Report dated 27.03.2005 lodged by the defendant–appellant and numerous different proof have been additionally filed by the plaintiff – respondent. Nevertheless, regardless of particular allegations of psychological cruelty on numerous grounds together with lodging of the false First Data Report in opposition to the plaintiff–respondent and his members of the family, the proof led on this regard by him couldn’t be disproved by the defendant–appellant. Regardless of particular allegations of lodging false FIRS, the defendant–appellant/spouse has chosen to not lead even her oral proof.

Contemplating the info and proof on report, the Principal Decide Household Court docket, Meerut decreed the swimsuit by judgement dated 16.12.2006 dissolving the wedding.

Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgement and decree, the defendant–appellant has filed the attraction.

Submissions of the counsel for the defendant-appellant:-

(i) The plaintiff-respondent has not taken any floor of cruelty within the plaintiff. Subsequently, the impugned judgment and decree granted by the Court docket beneath on the bottom of cruelty and dissolving the wedding, is prohibited.

(ii) The averments made in para no 15 of the plaint doesn’t quantity to cruelty.

(iii) The impugned order for dissolving the wedding underneath Part 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been handed with out affording alternative of listening to to the defendant-appellant.

(iv) The appliance 20-Ga for summoning a number of cops and employees in proof was illegally rejected by the Court docket by order dated 21.11.2006.

(v) Not including the sur-name “Panda” by the defendant-appellant, together with her identify or with the identify of her son, doesn’t quantity to cruelty.

Submissions of the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent:-

(i) The cruelty has been properly proved by the plaintiff-respondent and findings recorded on this regard within the impugned judgement are primarily based on consideration of related proof on report.

(ii) The plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant are undisputedly residing individually since 1999 and thus, greater than 23 years have handed and they aren’t able to stay collectively. Subsequently, in any view of the matter, the events can’t be directed to stay collectively. There may be irretrievable breakdown and the tie of marriage can’t be restored. The decree of divorce itself was handed on 16.12.2006 and thus, about 16 years have already handed from the date of decree of divorce.

The Court docket famous that,

The info of the case and the submissions of the counsels for the events as famous above clearly reveals that the grounds for divorce taken by the plaintiff–respondent was primarily “psychological cruelty”. The events have additionally led their proof on this regard. It has been admitted by the counsel for the defendant–appellant that the plaintiff–respondents led the oral proof of witnesses and have been cross examined at size by the defendant–appellant however the defendant–appellant has not led any oral proof. She has additionally not even filed copies of the order/judgments of the trial courtroom in prison instances lodged by her in opposition to the plaintiff–respondent and his members of the family. The plaintiff–respondent has led proof to show that the FIR lodged by the defendant–appellant have been primarily based on false allegations. The defendant–appellant has not led any proof to disprove it or to show that the FIR lodged by her was not primarily based on false allegation. She has not even led her oral proof.

The Court docket discovered that the plaintiff–respondent has proved psychological cruelty by the defendant–appellant, earlier than the Court docket beneath. Cases of constructing false complaints by the defendant-appellant in opposition to the plaintiff–respondent to greater authorities, making wild allegations in opposition to the mother and father of the plaintiff–respondent, unproved allegation of indulgence of the plaintiff in adultery and damaging their repute within the society, and many others. leaves no method of doubt that the courtroom beneath has not dedicated any illegality within the impugned judgment to carry fee of psychological cruelty by the defendant–appellant to the plaintiff–respondent. The impugned judgement of the courtroom beneath relies on consideration of proof on report. Thus, the impugned judgement doesn’t endure from any illegality.

“For all the explanations aforestated, we don’t discover any advantage on this attraction. The impugned judgment of the courtroom beneath doesn’t endure from any illegality,” the Court docket noticed whereas dismissing the attraction.



Source_link