SAPNA GUPTA Vs. AMIT GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are few facts, which are not disputed amongst the parties. They are to the effect that the parties to the Second Appeal got married on 7th January, 2006, in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals and subsequent to the marriage, the family shifted to United States to reside over there. As a consequence of the marriage and out of it, a son was born on 17.10.2009 and later on, the respondent husband got an engagement in Tata Consultancy Services in 2007 and, ultimately, in January, 2007, he has returned to India and after returning from USA, it is contended by the respondent/husband that all undue pressure was being created and exerted by the wife to have a separate living from the parents.

(2.) On account of certain matrimonial discord and misunderstanding, which has been narrated in the plaint, the respondent/husband contends that he was forced to initiate a proceeding for dissolution of marriage by filing Divorce Suit No. 619 of 2011, before the Principal Judge, Family Court Lucknow on 1st April, 2011, admittedly, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution, as per the provisions contained under Order 9 Rule 3 of the C.P.C.

(3.) The initial argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the present suit would be barred by the principle of res judicata on the ground that the earlier suit, the effect of which was already disclosed in para 28 of the plaint was dismissed for want of prosecution as the plaintiff was not able to appear due to illness of widowed mother.