On September 18, 2025, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice S. B. Pd. Singh delivered five judgements in Soma Raha @ Soma Aich @ Soma Aice @ Soma Raha Aich vs. Partho Sarthi Raha, Nitu Kumari vs. Munna Prasad Singh, Suman Kumari vs. Rakesh Kumar, Sanjay Kumar vs. Smt. Nilam Devi and Arpana Kumari vs. Shyam Kishore Kumar. Interestingly, all the judgemts were authored by Justice Singh. On an earlier occasion too, Justice Singh had authored all the judgements of the day.
In Soma Raha @ Soma Aich @ Soma Aice @ Soma Raha Aich vs. Partho Sarthi Raha, the Division Bench delivered a 18-page long judgement, wherein, it concluded: ''...the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in Matrimonial Case No. 93 of 2014 is hereby set aside and the marriage between the appellant-wife and respondent-husband is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce.'' The judgement authored by Justice Singh allowed the Miscellaneous Appeal.
The judgment reads:''24. It is made clear that the appellant-wife has limited her prayer only with regard to dissolution of marriage. Hence, if she is desirous for any permanent alimony, she is free to file appropriate application before appropriate forum. 25. The Registry is directed to prepare the decree of divorce accordingly.''
The present appeal was filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 impugning the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in Matrimonial Case No. 93 of 2014, whereby the matrimonial suit, preferred by the appellant, seeking dissolution of marriage, has been dismissed.
The case of the appellant was that the marriage of the appellant with respondent was solemnized on April 23, 2000 at Kolkata as per Hindu rights and customs. The marriage was registered under Special Marriage Act. At the time of marriage, the father of the appellant spent Rs. 9 lakhs on articles and sent the same with the appellant. The marriage was consummated and out of the wedlock, a girl-child was born who is now 11 years old. After one year of the marriage, the appellant found the behavior of the respondent towards her was not very good and he had his eyes on the appellant’s jewellery and he deceived her and kept her jewellery with himself in the name of keeping it in a bank locker and gradually misused by selling them and also repeatedly pressurized the appellant to ask for money from her father. The appellant was the only daughter of her parents, therefore, they kept fulfilling the demands of the respondent for the appellant’s happy married life but respondent’s demand kept increasing day by day and when it increased beyond limits, the appellant’s father became unable to fulfill the demand, as a result of which, the respondent started torturing and assaulting the appellant for non-fulfillment of dowry demand.
The appellant kept tolerating all the atrocities on herself for the sake of her daughter’s future. The respondent always kept lying to her for illegal demands and always kept assuring that her jewellery has been kept in the bank locker. The respondent always ignored appellant’s words and never fulfilled his marital obligations. The appellant alleged that the respondent always contacted her for sexual pleasure and never gave her the respect of a wife and he repeatedly went to her father’s house for money. The respondent being husband never behaved well with the appellant and always used to torture and assault the appellant. Her parents and relatives made a lot of efforts to convince the respondent but all their efforts went in vein. She alleged that being an ideal wife, she kept tolerating all the atrocities of respondent whereas the respondent, in order to hide his wrong conduct, kept tarnishing her reputation by making false allegations against her and kept increasing her mental agony and always kept saying that he cannot maintain marital relations with her. The harassment by the respondent kept increasing day by day and on March 8, 2013, when the appellant got fed up of the atrocities of respondent and made protest, she was beaten badly with an intention to kill and she was locked in a room. The appellant’s parents made a lot of efforts to convince the respondent but he was not ready to live with the appellant and from March 10, 2013 he had completely deserted her. The appellant alleged that due to the cruel behavior, betrayal, fraud and daily mental torture, it was very difficult to maintain marital relations with the respondent. Hence, the appellant had no other option but to file the divorce petition for dissolution of marriage with the respondent-husband.
The respondent-husband submitted that the case was fit to be dismissed as it was not maintainable either in eye of law or on fact. The respondent had married with the appellant under Special Marriage Act and he never demanded any dowry or tortured the appellant-wife for non- fulfillment of dowry demand. The allegation of the appellant-wife in the divorce petition for demand of dowry against the respondent was false, concocted levelled only in order to get divorce from the respondent. In fact, the father of the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs in the joint account of the respondent and appellant and thereafter withdrew Rs. 16 lakhs to purchase a flat and when the respondent-husband told the appellant wife that credit and debit of such a huge money in his account may create a problem in future as income tax department was on vigil of every account, the appellant quarreled with the respondent, called her father and went along with jewellery, pass-book cheque-book, ATM etc. The respondent was still ready to keep his wife with full dignity and honour. The respondent had never given threat, nor ill behaved, humiliated or quarreled with the appellant or any in-laws family members and all the allegations made against the respondent-husband are fake with a view to take divorce from him. Hence, the divorce petition is liable to be dismissed.
After conclusion of the trial, the Principal Judge, Family Court had come to the conclusion that the appellant had not proved her case and the suit was accordingly dismissed. Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in a Matrimonial Case of 2014, the appeal was filed by the appellant. The High Court has reversed this judgement and decree.
No comments:
Post a Comment