ASHOK JHA Vs. PRATIBHA JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt Pratibha Jha, in person (respondent).

(2.) Present appeal was filed against the order dtd. 7/11/2019 of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-2, Ghaziabad passed in Matrimonial Case No.253 of 2014 (Ashok Jha Vs Smt. Pratibha Jha), by which application of the appellant under Sec. -13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1955') for annulling the marriage of appellant and respondent was rejected.

(3.) The facts which give rise to the present case are that marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on 19/6/2002. Two children were born out of their wedlock. The appellant filed application under Sec. -13(1) of the Act, 1955 on 15/2/2014 for dissolving marriage of the appellant and respondent. This application was allowed ex parte by order dtd. 3/8/2016 and marriage of the parties was dissolved. After the knowledge of the aforesaid ex parte divorce decree dtd. 3/8/2016, the respondent filed a recall application on 22/11/2017, which was allowed and ex parte order dtd. 3/8/2016 was recalled by order dtd. 24/5/2018 and the divorce petition was restored at its original number. Thereafter, the respondent had also filed her written statement denying the allegation of divorce petition. Subsequently, the appellant had also filed an amendment application to make amendments in the divorce petition, which was allowed on 27/5/2019 by which the appellant brought on record certain new facts regarding criminal cases lodged by the respondent against the appellant, during the pendency of the divorce petition but respondent did not file any written statement after the amendment of the divorce petition. Apart from filing documentary evidence, the appellant examined himself as PW-1, Ram Shankar as PW-2 and Shailendra Singh as PW-3. Respondent also filed several documents and examined herself as DW-1. Learned Family Judge, framed following issues on the basis of pleadings of parties :