Reena Rani Tarasia vs State Of Odisha

Arindam Sinha, J.

Appellant is the wife, aggrieved by judgment dated 23rd March, 2020 of the Family Court dissolving the marriage on ground of adultery. Respondent no.1 is the husband, who has chosen to go unrepresented. Respondent no.2 was added as party in the civil proceeding on allegation of him being the paramour.

Mr. Chakaravarty, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and submits, because his client did not file written statement, she was not allowed to fully cross-examination respondent-husband and his other witnesses. On that ground alone impugned judgment should be set aside in appeal with direction of remand.

Without prejudice he submits, adultery could not be proved against his client. A purported ‘sweekarapatra’ was alleged to have been written by appellant. It is an unsigned document, tendered by the husband but was marked as exhibit with objection. It could not have been relied upon by the Family Court for finding on fact regarding adultery. There was no evidence before said Court to hold against his client. He submits further, his client has no relation with respondent no.2.

Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.2 and submits, his client had given evidence before the trial Court, of being a married man with children. He had denied suggestion put to him on behalf of the husband that he had illicit relationship with appellant.

There is clear allegation of adultery as had been made by the husband against appellant, of having carried on with respondent no.2. He asserted having witnessed it on 21st April, 2012 and on being confronted, appellant had admitted so in writing, including expressing her desire to leave him and she left him on 22nd April, 2012. On being cross-examined he stuck to his case.

Appellant and her husband were blessed with a son and a daughter. The son deposed and when he did so he was reading in class-XII. He corroborated testimony of his father. Respondent no.2 (alleged paramour) was also examined. It is interesting that he in his evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit said in paragraph-4 as is reproduced below.

“4. I do not know the petitioner or the respondent no.1; nor they are related to me in any manner. Similarly I do not know if they residing/resided at pareswar Sahi, Jobra and there is dispute between them.”

Having said that he went on say as in paragraph-6, also reproduced below.

“6. The petitioner has implicated me as a party in this case only to outrages my personality, social respect in public being jealously in my prosperity.”

Appellant declined to cross-examine respondent no.2. He was cross-examined by the husband. His deposition in cross-examination by paragraph-9 is reproduced below in its entirety.

“09. It is not true that I was going to the house of the petitioner in his absence. It is not a fact that I had illicit relation with the OP No.1 and the petitioner could know about our illicit relationship. It is not a fact that to suppress my own fault I am deposing falsehood.”

Appellant also was examined. Here too we note with interest that on her behalf suggestion was earlier put to her husband in cross-examination that exhibit-4 was got signed by her. Subsequent to examination of the husband and his party witnesses being over, appellant filed evidence-in-chief in shape of affidavit, clearly denying she had written the document marked exhibit-4 with objection. She then, in cross-examination, admitted to have written it. She also said in cross-examination she had not mentioned in her civil proceeding by C.P. no.359 of 2013 that exhibit-4 had been got signed by her. It is sufficient for us to infer that appellant was an unreliable witness and correctly disbelieved by the Family Court.

Facts, as we have been able to ascertain from the lower Court records are, inter alia, the husband witnessing appellant with respondent no.2 on 21st April, 2012. Appellant, after having written the note (exhibit-4), left her husband on 22nd April, 2012. There was suggestion given to her in cross-examination bringing to her notice after she had left the husband she did not lodge complaint of having been forced to write something. Not only did she not take any step to lodge complaint but she filed civil proceeding bearing C.P. no.359 of 2013 against the husband for dissolution of the marriage, without a whisper about the ‘sweekarpatra’. In the circumstances we do not get impression that appellant was hapless in the situation so as to have been unable to complain.

The Family Court relied on views taken by this and other High Courts in appreciating the facts to attract the ground of adultery provided in section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In our opinion, appreciation of the facts and conclusion for dissolution of the marriage were correctly done by the said Court. We confirm impugned judgment.

The appeal is dismissed.

……………………………..