SUNITA SINGH Vs. RAJ BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the judgment and decree dated 20-1-1997 passed by Shri B.D.S. Srivastava, Family Court Judge, Varanasi allowing Family Court petition No. 348 of 1995 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act) and for dismissing the aforesaid divorce petition with costs.

(2.) This is an unfortunate matrimonial case. The marriage was solemnised according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 18-5-1994. The appellant-wife immediately went to her matrimonial house and according to her case she returned on 21-5-1994 to her parental home where she stayed for some time and again went back on 7-12-1994 to her matrimonial house. There is an allegation that thereafter the husband and members of the family of the husband started torturing her demanding more dowry and they sent the appellant-wife to the parental home on 12-12-1994.

(3.) The version of the husband-respondent, however, on the other hand is as follows :- After solemnisation of the marriage on 18-5-1994 his wife went back for a short time and came for the second time after "Gauna" on 17-12-1994. She told him that she has to appear in Library Science examination, which is to be held on 12-12-1994 at Agrasen Mahavidyalaya, Varanasi. He believed her and accompanied her to the college, where the centre of examination was situated. He dropped her at about 7.00 A.M. His wife told him that he could come at 11.00 A.M. to take her back. When he went there he found his wife missing. He informed her mother-in-law who in turn informed that she had eloped with one Siddhant, who happened to be her neighbour. Consequently, a F.I.R., for missing of his wife, was lodged on 16-12-1994 at police Station Kotwali, District Varanasi. Later on she was found at the house of Rekha Gupta, who was her friend and again a report to that effect was lodged on 3-1-1995 He further alleged that she is madly in love with Siddhant before solemnisation of the marriage. In paragraph No. 6 of the plaint he submitted that :-