DIPANWITA ROY Vs. RONOBROTO ROY
LAWS(SC)-2014-10-22
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
October 15,2014
Dipanwita Roy
Appellant
VERSUS
Ronobroto Roy
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
CHILUKURI VENKATESWARLU VS. CHILUKURI VENKATANARAYANA [REFERRED TO]GOUTAM KUNDU VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
KANTI DEVI VS. POSHI RAM [REFERRED TO]
SHARDA VS. DHARMPAL [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LAL ALIAS KULDEEP VS. SANJEEV KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
BHABANI PRASAD JENA VS. CONVENOR SECRETARY [REFERRED TO]
KARAPAYA SERVAI VS. MAYANDI [REFERRED TO]
NANDLAL WASUDEO BADWAIK VS. LATA NANDLAL BADWAIK [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
BIPIN KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI RAM BRICHH SINGH VS. SMT. PUSHPA DEVI WIFE OF BIPIN SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2023-1-1] [REFERRED TO]BISHAMBER SINGH VS. RAJ KUMARI AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-12-103] [REFERRED TO]
BABU REMYALAYAM VEETTIL VS. VIDYA [LAWS(KER)-2014-11-245] [REFERRED TO]
HARSH GUPTA VS. STATE OF M P & ORS [LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
RANI VS. KALIDAS [LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-896] [REFERRED TO]
G. VASANTHI VS. M. MUNEESHWARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-235] [REFERRED TO]
R. KATHIRESAN, K. MEENAKSHI @ MEENAL VS. KALAICHELVAN @ DHANUSH K. RAJA [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDULA SATHAIAH VS. GOVINDULA MANJULA [LAWS(APH)-2016-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PAL YADAV VS. SANDHYA YADAV [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PRAKASH VS. KUMARI ANJALI [LAWS(ALL)-2019-8-96] [REFERRED TO]
NAMDEO VS. SEEMA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-1-267] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEKANAND KAREKAR VS. SMT. SNEHA KAREKAR ALIAS SHILPA KAREKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2016-6-112] [REFERRED TO]
SOHIDUL ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
PREETI MIRANIYA VS. SANJAY MIRANIYA [LAWS(CHH)-2021-2-52] [REFERRED TO]
BHEEM REDDY SATYANARAYANA REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-7-102] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL PACHAURI VS. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-233] [REFERRED]
SUBHENDU MAITY VS. SUSHMA NAYAK [LAWS(CAL)-2015-4-145] [REFERRED]
RAMESHBHAI POCHABHAI MARAND VS. SATIBEN [LAWS(GJH)-2019-10-92] [REFERRED TO]
DILESH NISHAD VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR VERMA VS. VIDYA VERMA [LAWS(CHH)-2022-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-160] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRISHNAN VS. MRINALINI [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-375] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA SINGH VS. SAUDAN SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
HEMA TIWARI VS. PANKAJ MISHRA [LAWS(MPH)-2021-11-128] [REFERRED TO]
BANARASI SAH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-12-104] [REFERRED TO]
AFR MANAS KUMAR KAR VS. BINAYA MISHRA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
RANJAN KUMAR BEHERA @ NAIK VS. DOMBURUDHAR BEHERA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
SARANYA VS. STATE BY INSPERCTOR OF POLICE, ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, PERAMBALUR AND DISTRICT. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-11-98] [REFERRED TO]
BADRI PRASAD JHARIA VS. VATSALYA JHARIA [LAWS(MPH)-2020-6-1002] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA SINGH KAURAV VS. RAJKUMARI KAURAV [LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-56] [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAL VS. KUMARI PRIYANKA [LAWS(HPH)-2022-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN KRISHNA BOTHIREDDY VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2017-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
GANGADHARAN VS. SREEDEVI AMMA [LAWS(KER)-2024-5-135] [REFERRED TO]
SULOCHANA SAHOO AND OTHERS VS. BAMAN CHARAN SAHOO [LAWS(ORI)-2015-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
DEV RAJ DEV VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV SINGH VS. JASWINDER KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2022-8-71] [REFERRED TO]
SURBHI TRIVEDI VS. GAURAV TRIVEDI [LAWS(MPH)-2019-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
KALAICHELVAN @ DHANUSH K. RAJA VS. R. KATHIRESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-180] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2020-11-227] [REFERRED TO]
MANAS KUMAR KAR VS. SMT. BINAYA MISHRA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
N.LAXMAIAH VS. N.SRINIVAS [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-4-127] [REFERRED TO]
RAFEEQUE, S/O.HAMZA HAJI VS. SAFEELA NASRIN, 2 (MINOR), D/O. RAFEEQUE AND OTHER [LAWS(KER)-2017-4-178] [REFERRED TO]
MALAPPA @ MALINGARAYA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAKHI KUMARI @ SONI VS. SRI BRIJ NANDAN RAM [LAWS(PAT)-2015-4-160] [REFERRED TO]
INAYATH ALI VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(SC)-2022-9-185] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. RAJ GUPTA [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEETA VS. BHAGWAN SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-6-6] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER KUMAR VS. TEJ RAM AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-8-89] [REFERRED TO]
JAHIR VS. RAJAN ALIAS RUJJAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-361] [REFERRED TO]
NEELAM SHARMA VS. BRIJMOHAN DUA [LAWS(CHH)-2022-2-72] [REFERRED TO]
BANAMALI CHOUDHURY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
RENU SINGH VS. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
SUDIP BISWAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITA DEVI VS. ANIL KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-481] [REFERRED]
MR. AMIT KHETAWAT VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-2-63] [REFERRED TO]
K. SUGANDHA KUMAR VS. K. VIJAYA LAXMI [LAWS(APH)-2015-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
BIBLY MONICA VS. VIR VIKRAM KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2020-2-221] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMANJI HARIJI HADIYOL VS. DHANPAL DHANUBEN SOLANKI [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-119] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-96] [REFERRED TO]
AMRTULAL AMTHABHAI MISTRI VS. ASHWINKUMAR AMRUTLAL MISTRI [LAWS(GJH)-2019-10-93] [REFERRED TO]
DHEERAJ GADA VS. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2015-8-116] [REFERRED TO]
BADRI PRASAD JHARIA VS. SEETA JHARIA [LAWS(MPH)-2017-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
HAWA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. MAIPERSON AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-278] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHBIR VS. BHARTO DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
SUBAS CHANDRA NAYAK VS. MEENA KUMARI SAHOO AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2019-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
SUNITA DEVI AND ANOTHER VS. MAKHAN LAL [LAWS(HPH)-2018-9-135] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALA AND ORS. VS. SHIVAKUMAR [LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-285] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRUBHAI TALSHIBHAI MER VS. DHIUBHAI UKABHAI MEMARIYA [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-71] [REFERRED TO]
JOYDEB DEY AND ANOTHER VS. MOUSUMI BOSE (DEY) AND OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2016-3-195] [REFERRED]
XXX VS. XXX [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
ANUSHA KUMARI VS. ROHAN [LAWS(PAT)-2023-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
HADIYA FIRDOUSE, AGED 25, D/O. K.K.MOHAMED HYDER, KOLLIYILHOUSE, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT POST BOX NO.4020, PURCHASING DEPARTMENT MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, DOHA, STATE OF QATAR VS. ABDUL VAHAB @ VAHAB, S/O. SULTAN MOIDEEN, KANJIRAPARAMBU HOUSE, VEDIMARA, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-226] [REFERRED TO]
E.C. RAMAKRISHNAN VS. MRINALINI @ NALINI [LAWS(KER)-2018-6-78] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK SONI VS. ANAMIKA [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-5-179] [REFERRED TO]
KUKKI SINGH VS. RANI [LAWS(P&H)-2017-9-52] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR GARGDEE CEE GHARIANWALA VS. KAJALNICKY [LAWS(P&H)-2023-5-98] [REFERRED TO]
MANJEET KAUR VS. SUKHWINDER KAUR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2019-9-410] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH BISHNOI VS. MAYA DEVI [LAWS(UTN)-2017-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
AUUP KUMAR MAITY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-92] [REFERRED TO]
W VS. H & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
SMT.RAMESHWARIBAI VS. ISHWAR LAL SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2017-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNARAYAN RAJE VS. VIKRAM SINGH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-6-79] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA VS. REETA SRIVASTAVA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-92] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDA VS. SURAT SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-193] [REFERRED TO]
SH. RAM GOPAL VS. SMT. VIDYA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2016-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
PALANISAMY VS. VIJAYAKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2021-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
APARNA AJINKYA FIRODIA VS. AJINKYA ARUN FIRODIA [LAWS(SC)-2023-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
MANVEER SINGH VS. ANITA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2019-12-422] [REFERRED TO]
BAPPADITYA GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHAN SHARMA VS. JAGMOHAN DUTT SHARMA MINOR THROUGH SH CHET RAM & ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-141] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KAPOOR VS. DIPIKA CHAUHAN [LAWS(HPH)-2023-4-114] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The petitioner-wife Dipanwita Roy and the respondent-husband Ronobroto Roy, were married at Calcutta. Their marriage was registered on 9.2.2003. The present controversy emerges from a petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the respondent, inter alia, seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnised between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband, on 25.1.2003.
(2.)One of the grounds for seeking divorce was, based on the alleged adulterous life style of the petitioner-wife. For his above assertion, the respondent-husband made the following allegations in paragraphs 23 to 25 of his petition:
"23. That since 22.09.2007 the petitioner never lived with the respondent and did not share bed at all. On a very few occasion since then the respondent came to the petitioner's place of residence to collect her things and lived there against the will of all to avoid public scandal the petitioner did not turn the respondent house on those occasion.
24. That by her extravagant life style the respondent has incurred heavy debts. Since she has not disclosed her present address to bank and has only given the address of the petitioner. The men and collection agents of different banks are frequently visiting the petitioner's house and harassing the petitioner. They are looking for the respondent for recovery of their dues. Notice from Attorney Firms for recovery of due from the respondent and her credit card statements showing heavy debts are being sent to the petitioner's address. The respondent purchased one car in 2007 with the petitioner's uncle, Shri Subrata Roy Chowdhary as the guarantor. The respondent has failed to pay the installments regularly.
25. That the petiitoner states that the respondent has gone astray. She is leading a fast life and has lived in extra marital relationship with the said Mr. Deven Shah, a well to do person who too is a carrier gentlemen and has given birth to a child as a result of her cohabitation with Shri Deven Shah. It is reported that the respondent has given birth to a baby very recently. The respondent is presently living at the address as mentioned in the cause title of the plaint."
(3.)The above factual position was contested by the petitioner-wife in her reply wherein she, inter alia, submitted as under:
"That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the plaint are admitted by the respondent to the extent that the daughter namely "Biyas" is residing in the custody of the respondent's mother with the arrangement of the petitioner and as a result of which the petitioner used to come at his mother in law's place and spending days therein and the respondent used to spend time with him and carrying on their matrimonial obligation which includes co-habitation.
That the statements made in paragraph No.7 in the plaint is absolutely false, concocted, untrue, frivolous, vexatious and made with the purpose of harassing the respondent and the petitioner is call upon to prove the allegation intoto. It is categorically denied by the respondent that she was a selfish person, very much concern about her own self and own affairs and without any concern for the petitioner as alleged. The respondent further denied that she was self willed, arrogant and short tempered and she used to fly into rage every now and then over small matter and used to quarrel with the petitioner and his mother as alleged. The respondent further denied and disputes that she used to go out every now and then according to her whims without informing either the petitioner and his mother as alleged. That the respondent further denies and disputes that she failed to disclose her whereabouts and used to stay out for long hours as alleged. The respondent further denies and disputes that she does not care little for the feelings of either the petitioner or his mother as alleged. The respondent further denies and disputes that she got extremely irritated and used to quarrel with the petitioner whenever the petitioner tried to speak to her as alleged.
That the statements made in paragraph 23 in the plaint are absolutely imaginative, concocted and false and the same are being made for the purpose of this case. The respondent denies and disputes in its present form the statement they lead an extravagant life style and thereby she incurred debts as alleged therein and the respondent provided her matrimonial house address to the bank as because the same is her permanent address after her marriage. The respondent denies and disputes the statement that men and collection agent of different banks were frequently visiting the petitioner's house and harassing the petitioner and they are looking for the respondent for recovery of dues as alleged therein. The respondent is to state and submit that many a times at the behest of the petitioner she used to purchase many things for him and spent lot of money while attending dinner and lunch at clubs and restaurants with the petitioner. The respondent is to further state and submit on repeated insistence of the petitioner the respondent purchased a car on credit for accommodating herself smooth journey at her office work as well as for other places and in such event the petitioner promised that he would pay 50% of the EMI in respect of purchase of the car which is actually failed to contribute. It is needless to mention that the respondent had incurred some debts due to financial recession in consequences of which she lost her job and as a result of that she failed to make payment of her outstanding to the bank in spite of her willingness although her parents extended their helpful hands to accommodate her which could enable to come out from the debts but the petitioner is such situation kept himself silent.
That the statements made in paragraph no.24 in the plaint are false, untrue, frivolous and concocted and the same are being made with a malafide intention for degrading and harassing the respondent in the eye of society in order to get the divorce from her. The respondent strongly denies and disputes the statement that she is leading a fast life in extra marital relationship with one Mr. Deven Shah and she had given a birth of a child as a result of cohabitation with Shri Deven Shah as alleged. The respondent further denies and disputes the statement that she ever live in the address mentioned in the case title in the plaint as alleged and the petitioner is call upon to prove the statements into.
The respondent is to state and submit that she had no extra marital relationship with one Mr. Deven Shah. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent is having a continuous matrimonial relationship with the petitioner and the petitioner too performed the matrimonial relation to as well as the cohabitation with the respondent in great spirit and as a result of which a male chid was born. At this stage raising question regarding birth of the child would actually put adverse effect not only towards the family but also towards of the mind of the tender aged child and this unscrupulous attitude is actually goes against the concept of welfare of the child."
A perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner-wife reveals that the petitioner-wife expressly asserted the factum of cohabitation during the subsistence of their marriage, and also denied the accusations levelled by the respondent-husband of her extra marital relationship, as absolutely false, concocted, untrue, frivolous and vexatious.
(2.)One of the grounds for seeking divorce was, based on the alleged adulterous life style of the petitioner-wife. For his above assertion, the respondent-husband made the following allegations in paragraphs 23 to 25 of his petition:
"23. That since 22.09.2007 the petitioner never lived with the respondent and did not share bed at all. On a very few occasion since then the respondent came to the petitioner's place of residence to collect her things and lived there against the will of all to avoid public scandal the petitioner did not turn the respondent house on those occasion.
24. That by her extravagant life style the respondent has incurred heavy debts. Since she has not disclosed her present address to bank and has only given the address of the petitioner. The men and collection agents of different banks are frequently visiting the petitioner's house and harassing the petitioner. They are looking for the respondent for recovery of their dues. Notice from Attorney Firms for recovery of due from the respondent and her credit card statements showing heavy debts are being sent to the petitioner's address. The respondent purchased one car in 2007 with the petitioner's uncle, Shri Subrata Roy Chowdhary as the guarantor. The respondent has failed to pay the installments regularly.
25. That the petiitoner states that the respondent has gone astray. She is leading a fast life and has lived in extra marital relationship with the said Mr. Deven Shah, a well to do person who too is a carrier gentlemen and has given birth to a child as a result of her cohabitation with Shri Deven Shah. It is reported that the respondent has given birth to a baby very recently. The respondent is presently living at the address as mentioned in the cause title of the plaint."
(3.)The above factual position was contested by the petitioner-wife in her reply wherein she, inter alia, submitted as under:
"That the statements made in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the plaint are admitted by the respondent to the extent that the daughter namely "Biyas" is residing in the custody of the respondent's mother with the arrangement of the petitioner and as a result of which the petitioner used to come at his mother in law's place and spending days therein and the respondent used to spend time with him and carrying on their matrimonial obligation which includes co-habitation.
That the statements made in paragraph No.7 in the plaint is absolutely false, concocted, untrue, frivolous, vexatious and made with the purpose of harassing the respondent and the petitioner is call upon to prove the allegation intoto. It is categorically denied by the respondent that she was a selfish person, very much concern about her own self and own affairs and without any concern for the petitioner as alleged. The respondent further denied that she was self willed, arrogant and short tempered and she used to fly into rage every now and then over small matter and used to quarrel with the petitioner and his mother as alleged. The respondent further denied and disputes that she used to go out every now and then according to her whims without informing either the petitioner and his mother as alleged. That the respondent further denies and disputes that she failed to disclose her whereabouts and used to stay out for long hours as alleged. The respondent further denies and disputes that she does not care little for the feelings of either the petitioner or his mother as alleged. The respondent further denies and disputes that she got extremely irritated and used to quarrel with the petitioner whenever the petitioner tried to speak to her as alleged.
That the statements made in paragraph 23 in the plaint are absolutely imaginative, concocted and false and the same are being made for the purpose of this case. The respondent denies and disputes in its present form the statement they lead an extravagant life style and thereby she incurred debts as alleged therein and the respondent provided her matrimonial house address to the bank as because the same is her permanent address after her marriage. The respondent denies and disputes the statement that men and collection agent of different banks were frequently visiting the petitioner's house and harassing the petitioner and they are looking for the respondent for recovery of dues as alleged therein. The respondent is to state and submit that many a times at the behest of the petitioner she used to purchase many things for him and spent lot of money while attending dinner and lunch at clubs and restaurants with the petitioner. The respondent is to further state and submit on repeated insistence of the petitioner the respondent purchased a car on credit for accommodating herself smooth journey at her office work as well as for other places and in such event the petitioner promised that he would pay 50% of the EMI in respect of purchase of the car which is actually failed to contribute. It is needless to mention that the respondent had incurred some debts due to financial recession in consequences of which she lost her job and as a result of that she failed to make payment of her outstanding to the bank in spite of her willingness although her parents extended their helpful hands to accommodate her which could enable to come out from the debts but the petitioner is such situation kept himself silent.
That the statements made in paragraph no.24 in the plaint are false, untrue, frivolous and concocted and the same are being made with a malafide intention for degrading and harassing the respondent in the eye of society in order to get the divorce from her. The respondent strongly denies and disputes the statement that she is leading a fast life in extra marital relationship with one Mr. Deven Shah and she had given a birth of a child as a result of cohabitation with Shri Deven Shah as alleged. The respondent further denies and disputes the statement that she ever live in the address mentioned in the case title in the plaint as alleged and the petitioner is call upon to prove the statements into.
The respondent is to state and submit that she had no extra marital relationship with one Mr. Deven Shah. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent is having a continuous matrimonial relationship with the petitioner and the petitioner too performed the matrimonial relation to as well as the cohabitation with the respondent in great spirit and as a result of which a male chid was born. At this stage raising question regarding birth of the child would actually put adverse effect not only towards the family but also towards of the mind of the tender aged child and this unscrupulous attitude is actually goes against the concept of welfare of the child."
A perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioner-wife reveals that the petitioner-wife expressly asserted the factum of cohabitation during the subsistence of their marriage, and also denied the accusations levelled by the respondent-husband of her extra marital relationship, as absolutely false, concocted, untrue, frivolous and vexatious.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.