SEEMA ALIAS AARJU Vs. RAVINDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal under section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1984') preferred by defendant respondent is to the judgement dated 30.11.2016 and decree dated 3.12.2016, passed by Kamlesh Dubey, Principal Judge, Family Court, Hapur, whereby Suit No. 468 of 2018 (Ravindra Singh Vs. Seema @ Aarju) filed by plaintiff-respondent for divorce has been decreed.

(2.) We have heard Ms. Pragya Pandey, learned counsel for defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant') and Mr. Hari Manish Bahadur Sinha for plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as respondent.

(3.) Respondent filed Original Suit No. 468 of 2013 (Ravindra Singh Vs. Seema @ Aarju) in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hapur for a decree of divorce vide plaint dated 1.8.2013. According to plaint allegations, case of plaintiff in brief was that marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 29.6.2012 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs without any dowry. Respondent in discharge of his obligation as husband provided every comfort to appellant; however, inspite of aforesaid, appellant was neither satisfied nor happy; Appellant is of an agitated mind and demanding in nature; Appellant is physically assaulted respondent and his mother; On account of her charged character, appellant extended threat to respondent of getting him killed; Appellant is having relationship with another person as she holds talk with him for long hours on telephone; Family of respondent complained to family members of appellant regarding her aforesaid character but in vain; appellant and his family members have committed 'mental cruelty' upon respondent; there is a serious threat to his life in company of appellant, as he can be murdered on any day; and on 4.7.2013, appellant left house of respondent along with Gold and Silver Jewellery, expensive clothes and Rs.10,000/- cash, without taking permission of respondent. On the aforesaid basis, respondent is alleged to have requested appellant to seek divorce which ultimately, she refused on 26.7.2013. The suit for divorce was filed by respondent on the ground of 'cruelty' which is a ground recognized for divorce, under section 13 (1) (ia) of Act 1955.