DILIP KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. POONAM DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dtd. 14/3/2018 passed by Family Court, Varanasi in Marriage Petition No.1014 of 2016, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been rejected. The proceedings were initiated by the appellant, inter alia, with the submissions that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 15/2/2004 and on account of family issues, dispute started between the parties for the first time in the year 2007 and on 26/7/2007, the respondent-wife on her own left the matrimonial home and went to her paternal home and refused to come back.

(2.) The appellant filed application under Sec. 9 of the Act on 13/8/2007 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. On receipt of summons in the said proceedings, on 23/12/2007, the respondent initiated proceedings under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and in March, 2008, by filing complaint under Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. regarding dowry harassment, case under Sec. 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was registered. Proceedings under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. were filed before this Court and the same led to mediation. During the said period, a son was born, who is about eight years of age. Based on the mediation proceedings, order was passed on 11/2/2010, wherein the parties agreed to live together. However, on 15/2/2010, the family members of the respondent took away the respondent and as such the appellant instituted proceedings under Sec. 98 Cr.P.C. in Varanasi. The proceedings initiated under Sec. 9 of the Act were also disposed of on 27/2/2011 based on the compromise between the parties regarding living together. Again, on 13/3/2011, the respondent returned back to her paternal home and in proceedings under Sec. 98 Cr.P.C., she gave statement that she would not live with the appellant and would live with her father, based on which, the complaint was rejected on 13/12/2011.

(3.) It was also averred in the plaint that since 2009 based on the proceedings initiated by the respondent, the appellant was paying a sum of Rs.1500.00 per month as interim maintenance. The case registered against the appellant for dowry was closed by the High Court on 11/9/2014. It was alleged that after the proceedings under Sec. 98 Cr.P.C. were concluded, a document indicating second marriage by the appellant, was prepared and produced in the proceedings for maintenance. When the Family Court did not take cognizance of the said allegation, an F.I.R. was lodged under Sec. 494 IPC at Police Station Aurai, wherein fraudulently charge sheet was got filed. On coming to know of the same, proceedings were initiated under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by the appellant before this Court, wherein further proceedings were stayed on 23/1/2015. It was submitted that on account of the order passed in mediation, the respondent stayed with the petitioner from 11/2/2010 to 15/2/2010, for 05 days and for 13 days on account of order passed in 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings, whereafter based on order passed by the Family Court, Varanasi from 16/2/2011 to 13/3/2011, for 25 days i.e. for a total of 43 days lived together. It was alleged that despite all efforts made by the appellant, the respondent was not prepared to live with the appellant and false allegations have been made and proceedings were initiated. It was alleged that after 13/3/2011, there has been no matrimonial relations between the parties. Allegations were also made that the respondent has deserted the appellant, she was intolerant qua his family members, used to misbehave with the appellant, false F.I.R. was lodged, resulting in police harassment and, therefore, the marriage between the parties be dissolved.