SATENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KANCHAN GUPTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1984") has come up against judgement and decree dated 27.9.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, dismissing the Suit No. 54 of 2003 filed by appellant under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955"), seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:

(2.) Respondent appeared in suit and filed her written statement. She denied all allegations made in the plaint except solemnization of marriage. Respondent in her additional plea submitted that soon after the marriage, behaviour of appellant was very cruel against her. The appellant demanded a Indica Car and when she and her family showed them inability to accept the demand of Car, she was assaulted by appellant. Respondent never refused to cohabit with appellant. On the contrary when respondent became pregnant, it was appellant and his family members, who forced respondent to abort the child. When respondent refused to accept illegal demands of appellant, she was thrown out from the house. Ultimately she gave birth to a male child in her parents house on 26.10.2000 in Tiwari Nursing Home, Rajendra Nagar, Gorakhpur. Appellant and his family members were invited after birth of male child. However, appellant and his family members refused to see the face of child.

(3.) Respondent further stated that a Car was given to appellant at the time of marriage. However, appellant sold the car and illegally demanded Indica Car and also sent a wrong notice, which was rightly replied by respondent. All allegations regarding misbehaviour and conduct of respondent are wrong and false. On the contrary, the behaviour of appellant and is family members was very cruel with respondent. All allegations were made in order to break the marriage. Appellant and his family members wanted to take divorce on frivolous ground in order to perform second marriage of appellant. On the contrary, respondent was willing and ready to live with appellant and it was only the appellant, who refused to keep her with him and ultimately, respondent was forced to file suit before Family Judge. She also filed a maintenance suit. However, when appellant assured that he will keep her children, the parties entered into a compromise. In Suit No. 255 of 2001, Family Court restrained appellant from performing second marriage, whereupon appellant and his family members became annoyed and threatened her to face dire consequence. In order to save herself, respondent again moved a complaint before Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur and on the basis of said complaint, police personnel called both the parties and amicably a settlement arrived between them. Appellant himself was not interested in having second child. Appellant also pressurized respondent to give in writing to Court regarding allegations made by respondent that all these allegations were false. When respondent refused, she was pressurized to do so. However, there were again a settlement arrived between appellant and respondent hence she again went to house of appellant.