VIVEKANAND PRADHAN Vs. BHARTI PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Husband against the judgment and decree dtd. 5/2/2020 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.162-A/2017, whereby the application filed by him under Sec. 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'Act of 1955') seeking dissolution of marriage has been dismissed. Therefore, the instant appeal is by the husband.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant-husband instituted a suit claiming decree for dissolution of marriage on the grounds enumerated under Sec. 13(1)(i-a) of the Act of 1955. It is pleaded in the application that his marriage with respondent-wife was solemnized on 1/5/2007 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Rituals and they have been blessed with three children. According to the appellant-husband, after marriage, the respondent joined the company of appellant for performing matrimonial obligations. After some time of marriage, her behaviour suddenly changed towards him and she started quarreling with the appellant over petty domestic issues and during scuffle, she also threatened the appellant to leave him. It is further pleaded that on 27/5/2014, the respondent-wife accompanied by her three children left the house at 7:00 pm without informing him and his family members. Then, the appellant started searching them, but he could not trace them out, therefore, he lodged a missing report (Ex.P-1) on 28/5/2014 at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh in that behalf. After 5-6 of making report, an information was given to the appellant that the respondent-wife is living at village Baghadola in the house of her friend along with children. Thereafter, the appellant along with his friend Kedarnath Gupta went there and enquired about the name of friend of respondent, but she (respondent-wife) did not disclose her friend's name. It is also pleaded by him that the appellant requested the respondent to return the matrimonial house, upon which, the maternal grand father of the respondent brought the respondent-wife to the house of appellant-husband. It is further pleaded that even then there is no change in her behaviour and used to pick quarrels with the appellant in petty matters. According to the appellant, on 7/6/2017, the appellant went to Raigarh for skill test,leaving the respondent and his children in the house and taking undue advantage of the absence of the appellant, one Harikishan Bareth @ Pappu Bareth came to the house of appellant and had sexual intercourse with the respondent-wife. At the same time, the appellant reached there and saw them in a compromising position. It is further put forth by him that on seeing them in such condition, he raised alarm and called the other family members and informed them about the incident. The appellant, thereafter, reported the said incident in the Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh against the respondent and Harikishan Bareth @ Pappu Bareth, but because of Harikishan Bareth @ Pappu Bareth being influenced person, no offence was registered against him, in turn, the said Harikishan Bareth @ Pappu Bareth threatened the appellant for dire consequence and the appellant has also made complaint in that behalf also vide Ex.P-12. Since the respondent-wife was leading adultery life and that there is no physical relation between them since 7/6/2017, therefore, the appellant has been compelled to institute the said suit.

(3.) In reply, respondent-wife, while admitting the factum of marriage with the appellant-husband on 1/5/2007 and they have three children, denied the aforesaid averments. It was specifically pleaded by her that during the course of cohabitation, appellant used to abuse and commit marpeet with her and prevented her to meet the children, which compelled her to go to her maternal home. On 7/6/2016, again the appellant committed marpeet with the respondent-wife and went to police station Chakradhar Nagar and lodged the false report against her, upon which the Station In-charge made him understand and advised him to live peacefully in future. However, despite that the appellant left the place leaving her alone and since then she is living in her maternal home. It is stated by the respondent-wife that the appellant has moved the application for divorce on false grounds so that he can get the divorce decree and marry again. On these grounds, she prayed that appeal filed by her husband seeking dissolution of marriage is baseless, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.