The High Court of Jharkhand, in a significant matrimonial dispute ruling, has dismissed an appeal filed by a husband seeking divorce, affirming a Family Court’s decision that he failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his wife had solemnized a second marriage.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar concluded that the husband could not establish his allegation against his wife with “reliable, cogent and convincing evidence.” The court found no perversity in the Family Court’s judgment, which had meticulously analyzed the contradictory witness testimonies and inadmissible electronic evidence presented by the husband.
Background of the Case
The appellant, a Sub-Inspector in the SSB, married the respondent on November 16, 2012, according to Tribal customs. The couple has a son from the marriage. In his petition before the Family Court, Chaibasa, the husband sought dissolution of the marriage on the grounds that his wife had entered into a second marriage.
He alleged that his wife began refusing physical relations and was in contact with a man named Dura Munduiya. According to the husband’s plaint, the wife left the matrimonial home on January 28, 2022. He claimed that on being informed by a villager, he, along with his mother and the villager, went to a house in Khapparsai on February 28, 2024, where they forcibly opened a door and found his wife in a physical relationship with Dura Munduiya.
The central allegation in the divorce suit was that the wife solemnized a second marriage with Dura Munduiya on February 29, 2024, without obtaining a divorce from him. The husband stated that village meetings were held regarding this issue and that he had filed police complaints which resulted in no action.
The Family Court in Chaibasa framed several issues, the most crucial being whether the wife had solemnized a second marriage with Dura Munduiya. After examining the evidence, the Family Court dismissed the suit on September 30, 2024, holding that the husband had failed to prove his case. This judgment was challenged in the present appeal before the High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the appellant-husband argued that the Family Court’s judgment was perverse as it had improperly considered the evidence, including witness testimonies and a village register that documented the proceedings of a meeting about the alleged second marriage.
Conversely, counsel for the respondent-wife defended the Family Court’s order, submitting that the judge had correctly concluded there was no evidence to establish the second marriage and that the judgment was well-reasoned.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court conducted a thorough review of the evidence and the Family Court’s findings. The bench noted significant contradictions in the testimonies of the husband’s witnesses regarding the alleged incident at Khapparsai.
The court observed:
- Contradictory Testimonies: Witnesses gave conflicting accounts of who was present when the wife was allegedly found with Dura Munduiya. The husband claimed in his plaint to be present, but in his deposition, he stated he was informed by others. The court noted, “there is contradiction in the deposition of [the husband] about the fact mentioned in Para-9 of the plaint.”
- Lack of Independent Witnesses: The court found it suspicious that although the incident allegedly occurred at 08:00 A.M., no one from the village of Khapparsai was called as a witness, and the owner of the house was never identified.
- Inadmissible Electronic Evidence: The husband submitted a pen drive containing photos and videos allegedly of the second marriage. The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s decision to deem this evidence inadmissible. The judgment extensively discussed the law on electronic evidence, referencing Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and landmark Supreme Court rulings in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal.
The court held that for secondary electronic evidence to be admissible, it must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The judgment stated, “The petitioner could not explain that where the cloned Pen-drive were prepared and which computer set was used for preparing secondary evidence. No certificate has been filed by the petitioner.”
Furthermore, the witnesses who allegedly recorded the videos and photos gave conflicting statements. P.W.-7, Lilmuni Deogam, who was claimed to have recorded the ceremony, deposed that she did not know who took the photographs.
- Village Register Insufficiencies: The court noted that the village meeting register, which was presented as evidence, did not mention the date of the alleged second marriage, nor did it contain the names of the key eye-witnesses, P.W.-7 and P.W.-8.
The Final Verdict
The High Court concluded that the Family Court had analyzed the evidence in a “threadbare manner” and its findings were not perverse. The judgment defines a perverse finding as one that is “not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself.” The bench found that the appellant had failed to meet this standard to challenge the lower court’s decision.
In dismissing the appeal, the Court held, “This Court, on consideration of the impugned judgment as also the material available on record, has found that no such cogent evidence has been produced by the appellant-husband to establish that her wife, the respondent herein, has performed second marriage with Dura Munduiya on 29.02.2024 and is living with him.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the Family Court’s order refusing the decree of divorce was upheld.
