NEETESH KUMAR PAL Vs. RAMENDREE PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appeal stands preferred by aggrieved husband in the marriage. The Family Court on judgment dtd. 24/1/2025 refused to accept appellant's petition for dissolution of the marriage. In other words, it stood dismissed. Mr. Saurabh Sachan, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and Mr. Shyam Bahadur, learned advocate, for respondent-wife.

(2.) We had required the registry to make English translation of impugned judgment as well as judgment dtd. 22/9/2017, earlier passed by a different learned Judge of the Family Court, rejecting the petition of respondent-wife claiming interim maintenance under Sec. 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We have perused both judgments. We have also heard learned advocates for the parties.

(3.) It appears from impugned judgment, the Family Court disbelieved appellant's case because he was found to have separated from respondent on 25/12/2015, when she was two months pregnant. Said Court found appellant had admitted that neither did he know for how many days his daughter was in intensive care unit (ICU) after birth nor what disease she was suffering from. He never attended his daughter's birthdays. On 25/5/2019, when respondent went to Bengaluru, appellant did not take her to his room because he was staying with other roommates (colleagues). Having found so, the Family Court proceeded to say, inter alia, as in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment, English translation of which are reproduced below :