SATYAJEET NATH Vs. RATNA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 1st February, 2011 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.364-A/10, dismissing the application of the appellant/plaintiff filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.6.2007 at Pandri, Raipur as per Hindu customs and ceremony. Thereafter, the parties resided together till 12.10.2007. It is also not in dispute that from 13.10.2007 to 16.10.2007, the respondent/wife resided at her maternal home and after that, from 17.10.2007 till leaving her matrimonial home on 23.4.2008, that the parties had resided together. However, rest of the facts are disputed.

(3.) THE case of the respondent/wife, in short, is that immediately after marriage, the mother and unmarried sister of the appellant/husband were treating her with cruelty and she was not allowed to sit on the furniture of the house as well as to talk to her husband and they used to pass sarcastic remarks that she is not beautiful etc. The appellant/husband, after coming home in a drunken condition, used to beat her. On 23.4.2008, the mother and sister of the appellant were beating her, therefore, to save her life she had left the matrimonial home and went away to her maternal home and thereafter, under the compulsion that she lodged a report at Mahila Thana, Raipur. During the counseling proceedings, the appellant had assured the respondent that he is getting his house constructed and after completion of construction, he will take her back with him, but the appellant after that did not come to take her back. On 23.4.2008, the respondent, under compulsion, had left her matrimonial home in a night gown only and during counseling at Mahila Thana, Raipur, she only demanded her clothes, on which the appellant had returned all her goods at Mahila Thana, which demonstrates that the appellant is not willing to keep her after giving assurances during the counseling that after construction of the house, he (appellant) will take her back alongwith him. However, after that, the appellant never returned to take her back, but filed a suit for divorce. The respondent/wife is not living at her maternal home without just and reasonable cause, but under the circumstances mentioned above. The respondent/wife has neither deserted the company of the appellant/husband nor has committed cruelty towards him or his family members.