YOGESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. SWATI PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the Husband/Appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.8.2014 passed in Case No.224-A of 2010 by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, whereby the Family Court rejected the application under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 moved by the Husband/Appellant against the Wife/Respondent for a decree of divorce.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnised according to Hindu customs and traditions at Bhatapara, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) on 7.7.2006. Out of their wedlock, a son, namely, Ritik was born on 25.2008. It is also not disputed that the Appellant had sent a notice to the Respondent through his Advocate for restoration of conjugal rights, which was replied by the Respondent through her Advocate.

(3.) The case before the Family Court was that the marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent was solemnised at Bhatapara, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) on 7.7.2006. Thereafter, both went to Singhroula, Chandrapur (Maharashtra), where the Appellant was employed as an Engineer and began to reside and lead their married life there. Out of their wedlock, the Respondent conceived. Since this was her first delivery, her parents brought her back from Chandrapur (Maharashtra) and got her admitted in Bagdi Nursing Home at Raipur (Chhattisgarh), where she delivered son Ritik on 25.2.2008. At that time, the Appellant was present there. After discharge from the nursing home, the Respondent, without consent and permission of the Appellant, went to her maternal house at Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh). When the Appellant went to Bhatapara to see his son, he was refused and threatened to be beaten. Thereafter, the Appellant and his family members went to Bhatapara 5-6 times to take the Respondent back, but the family members of the Respondent refused to send her and said that sufficient facility of treatment is not available at the place where the Appellant is employed and posted, while, as per the Appellant, sufficient facility of treatment is available at Village Singhroula, Chandrapur (Maharashtra). On 5.4.2008, elder brother of the Appellant, namely, Pinakpani Pandey went to Bhatapara to bring back the Respondent, but the family members of the Respondent refused to send her and they misbehaved with Pinakpani Pandey and abused and threatened him. On the occasion of naming ceremony of the new born baby, when the mother of the Appellant went to Bhatapara, she was illtreated and was threatened to be implicated in a false case of torture for dowry. Thereafter, a false case under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was lodged against the Appellant and he was got arrested. He was threatened that he will also be falsely implicated in a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. On account of torture being given by the Respondent, the Appellant seriously fell ill and was admitted in Navjyoti India Foundation, New Delhi for treatment. The Respondent was tried to be taken back to her matrimonial house on behalf of the Appellant through the NGO (Non-Government Organisation) of Ms. Kiran Bedi, but the family members of the Respondent did not send her back without any reason. A notice was sent to the Respondent on behalf of the Appellant for restitution of conjugal rights. In response to the said notice, the Appellant was threatened by the Respondent to be falsely implicated in a case under Section 498A IPC. When the Appellant went to Bhatapara to see his son on 29.8.2010, the family members of the Respondent beat him and lodged a false case of torture for dowry against him. Likewise, on his again going to Bhatapara on 25.4.2012, a false case under Sections 294, 506 Part II IPC was lodged against him. The Appellant, thereafter, having been physically and mentally tortured on behalf of the Respondent, filed an application against the Respondent before the Family Court for grant of a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.