Subrat Routray vs Sarmistha Priyadarsini Pal

Arindam Sinha, J

Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and submits, he is urging ground of cruelty for impugned judgment dated 5th December, 2022 being reversed in appeal, to dissolve the marriage. For purpose of reconciliation his client’s father had called for a village ‘panch’. Respondent-wife along with her relatives had attended the panch but thereafter went to Jagatsinghpur Police Station and lodged complaint dated 31st March, 2016. The complaint was registered as First Information Report (FIR) and soon after his client and family members, taken into custody. It was a false case amounting to mental cruelty. His client seeks relief before this Court.

Complaint letter dated 31st March, 2016 was produced. In this connection we reproduce below paragraph 4 from our order dated 9th January, 2024.

“4. Perused the letter of complaint dated 31st March, 2016. It appears to be mere narration of what took place prior to and on 14th February, 2016, in the village panch, where respondent-wife alleged that appellant-husband had refused to take her back. The complaint was lodged on 31st March, 2016 and the police became proactive to take into custody appellant-husband and his family members. The police played a vital role in perpetrating cruelty on appellant-husband. From appellant-husband’s stand point cruelty thus was perpetrated at instance of respondent-wife.”

Mr. Mahapatra submits, his client had filed for divorce on several grounds including cruelty and desertion. At present, however, he is prepared to take back respondent-wife and the daughter.

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-wife. He submits, both the parties were earlier present in Court. He reminds us that maintenance is in arrears and it is a ploy under taken by appellant-husband, of wanting to take back his client, to avoid paying it.

It appears from impugned judgment, main allegation of cruelty is that appellant-husband was sought to be made domesticated-son-in-law. On perusal of the lower Court record (LCR), earlier Division Bench, to which one of us was party (Arindam Sinha, J.) had thought fit to examine appellant-husband. The questions put and answers given stand recorded in order dated 7th November, 2023. The questions and answers are extracted from said order and reproduced below.

“To Court

I. When did you get married? // I got married on 2nd June, 2013.

II. On 8th day after the marriage did you accompany your wife to her parental home? // Yes.

IV. At any time did you stay overnight in your in-laws’ house? // Yes.

V. What was the occasion? // It was on occasion of ceremony upon invitation of son-in-law.

VI. When was your daughter born? // On 7th May, 2014.

VII. How did you come to know about birth of the daughter? // I was informed after about five days of birth by my elder sister-in-law.

VIII. When did you first see your daughter? // Sometime in the year 2015 when there was talks of settlement”

It is clear from above record of examination by Court that appellant-husband stayed for only one night in his in-law’s house. That militates against his allegation of respondent-wife and her family having meted out cruelty to him in trying to make him a domesticated-son-in-law. The examination by Court is treated as additional evidence in appeal, necessary for purpose of delivering judgment.

The Family Court, it appears from impugned judgment, found on facts that story/case of appellant-husband that he was sought to be made a domesticated-son-in-law was to be and disbelieved. On the other hand, said Court found corroboration of evidence to believe that respondent-wife had a miscarriage perpetrated by appellant-husband and his family members. Regarding allegation and counter allegation on what happened in the village panch, the Family Court found omission by the husband to produce independent witness, whose testimony could be relied upon. Further finding is that after the panch no step had been taken by appellant-husband for restitution. No such step was taken by respondent-wife is a finding as well.

We have tried for the parties to reconcile. In this context we reproduce below paragraphs 2 and 3 from our order dated 17th January, 2024.

“2. Attention was drawn to our order dated 9th January, 2024. It appears during pendency of the civil proceeding there was direction to pay maintenance, unpaid. On complaint made by respondent-wife, police took action against appellant-husband. Appellant-husband present in Court has expressed his willingness to take back respondent-wife. She on query from Court submits, no money was paid by her husband for upkeep of herself and their daughter in all this while. Even then she is willing to join his society. On query from Court, Mr. Mahapatra submits, appellant-husband is unemployed.

We have interacted with the daughter. She is a nice girl. As a result of interaction and aforesaid we think the appeal is to be heard.”

Accordingly, we have taken up the appeal for hearing. There was no tender by appellant-husband of the maintenance in arrears.

We have sufficient reason to accept the findings on fact made by the Family Court. Nothing otherwise could be shown from said Court’s record. It has been demonstrated that appellant-husband to turn around in wanting to take back respondent-wife and the daughter is to avoid discharging the liability of maintenance in arrears. Nothing is there in the record to substantiate allegations made by appellant-husband, of cruelty or desertion. As such, no interference in appeal is warranted with impugned judgment. It is confirmed. Respondent-wife may find remedy of enforcing direction for interim maintenance, in accordance with law.

The appeal is dismissed.

..……………………………..