UMESH KANT Vs. PRITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-appellant Umesh Kant has filed present first appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1984') challenging Judgment dated 13.7.2017 and decree dated 19.7.2017 passed by Sarvesh Kumar Pandey, Judge, Family Court, Fast Track Court, Agra in Suit No. 1504 of 2015 (Umesh Kant Vs. Smt. Priti) whereby suit for divorce filed by appellant on the grounds of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Lavkush Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff') and Mr. P.K. Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel representing defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant').

(3.) Plaintiff filed Suit No. 1504 of 2015 (Umesh Kant Vs. Smt. Priti) for annulment of marriage of parties solemnized on 19.2.2006. According to plaint allegations, marriage of parties was solemnized on 19.2.2006 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. From wedlock and co-habitation of parties, a son was born. According to plaintiff, defendant left her matrimonial home on 9.5.2010. When in spite of repeated requests made by plaintiff, defendant refused to come to her marital home and discharge her marital/spousal obligations, plaintiff filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was ultimately decreed ex-parte, vide Judgment and decree dated 3.11.2012. In spite of aforesaid Judgment and decree as well as repeated requests made by plaintiff, defendant did not come to her marital home. According to plaintiff, he went on 9.5.2010 to persuade defendant to come to her marital home but she refused. After passing of Judgment dated 3.11.2012 in suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by plaintiff, he again went on 18.11.2012 to request defendant to come to her marital home, but she refused. It is alleged by plaintiff that according to defendant her marriage has been solemnized with plaintiff, contrary to her wishes, even when she wanted to marry another man. In the light of above, a panchayat was called in which family members and relatives of plaintiff and defendant assembled. Aforesaid fact was disclosed to the panchayat and respondent openly stated before panchayat that she does not wish to live with plaintiff as she wants to marry another man. Attempt was made by family members and relatives to persuade respondent to discharge her marital obligations, but she disagreed to accept the same. Irrespective of aforesaid, plaintiff repeatedly attempted to bring respondent to her marital home, but she did not return. Even family members of respondent did not respond to the occasion by sending respondent to her marital home. Conduct of defendant is unlike a faithful and pious wife as all attempts to persuade her for establishing marital relationship have failed. Defendant has deserted plaintiff on 9.5.2010 and since then, there has been no conjugal relationship between parties. Co-habitation and conjugal relation with defendant is impossible. Defendant has committed physical and mental cruelty upon plaintiff as she has failed to discharge her spousal obligation and deprive plaintiff pleasures of married life. Plaintiff and defendant have separated in the year 2009 and thus, for the last six years, they have been living separately. In the aforesaid period, there has been no establishment of conjugal relations nor the respondent has conceived through plaintiff. It was thus urged by plaintiff that except for divorce there is no other way to resolve the stalemate.