IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No. 180 of 2008
Reena Devi ... Appellant
Versus
R. Sao @ Raj Kr. Saw ..... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. P.A.S.Pati, Advocate
------
Dated: 19th of August, 2011
This appeal is directed against the order dated 6.8.2008 passed in
Misc. Case No. 6 of 2003, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court
Jamshedpur, whereby the said miscellaneous application has been rejected on
contest, which was filed for setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated
23.11.2002
passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 70 of 2002.
According to the case of the parties, the parties were married on
3.3.2001 and after sometime, differences cropped up between them and an
application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed jointly by
both the parties for divorce by mutual consent, which was registered as
Matrimonial Suit No. 70 of 2002. After examining the parties, in which both
the parties supported the case for divorce by mutual consent, the case was
decreed by Judgment and Decree dated 23.11.2002. Subsequently, the
miscellaneous case was filed by the appellant-wife stating inter alia that the
husband-opposite party had filed Matrimonial Suit No. 70 of 2002 by
practicing fraud, threat and coercion upon her and she came to know about the
fraud for the first time in July 2003 when the appellant was driven out from her
matrimonial home. It appears from the impugned order that the witnesses from
both the sides were examined in the miscellaneous case and upon
consideration of the material on record, the Court below, by order dated
6.8.2008 has rejected the application on contest.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from the
record, it appears that entire exercise of filing the matrimonial suit, was a big
fraud upon the appellant and she was brought to Court on different dates on
some other pretext and her signatures were obtained, but she could not know
that actually the matrimonial suit was filed for divorce by mutual consent. It is
also submitted that deposition of the appellant was recorded in the court below
as she was asked by the opposite party-husband that he was going to purchase
a land in her name and the transfer of land would take place only if she
deposed as advised by the advocate. Even after recording of her evidence, both
the parties lived together for about six months and thereafter she was driven
away from her matrimonial home.
Having heard learned counsels for both the sides, we are of the
considered view that once the application was filed in the court below for
divorce by mutual consent and the appellant even deposed before the court
below on oath, supporting the said application, it is now not open to the
appellant to challenge the Judgment and Decree passed in the matrimonial suit
on the aforementioned grounds. From the judgment, it appears that the court
below has also taken note of the contradictory stands taken by the appellant,
inasmuch as, in the application, it was stated that the opposite party threatened
her that if she would not depose as per the direction of the counsel of the
opposite party, her marriage with the opposite party could not be confirmed
and the appellant would not be able to live with the opposite party, but during
the evidence, none of the witnesses including the appellant herself, supported
these pleadings, rather, she deposed in the Court below that she was taken to
the court for purchasing the landed property, about which there was no
pleading at all. It also appears from the impugned order that the appellant did
not adduce any evidence with respect to any specific act of threat or coercion
by the opposite party. The court below, after detailed discussion of the
materials brought on record, has held that the appellant has failed to establish
her case of any specific fraud, threat or coercion ever being practiced by the
opposite party and has rejected the application.
We see no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order
passed by the Court below. There is no merit in this appeal which is,
accordingly, dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, without
costs.
(Prakash Tatia, A.C.J.)
( H.C. Mishra, J.)
R.Kr./B.S.