GIRISH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. REETA SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal under section 19 of Family Court's Act 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1984") arising out of judgement dated 16.7.2015 and decree dated 23.7.2015, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi in Marriage Petition No. 536 of 2013 (Girish Chandra Srivastava Vs. Smt. Reeta Srivastava) under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act , 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1955") whereby, Court below has dismissed marriage petition filed by plaintiff-appellant for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, adultery and desertion.

(2.) According to plaint allegations, marriage of plaintiff-appellant was solemnized with Reeta Srivastava on 30.11.2001 in a very simple manner. It is the case of plaintiff-appellant that defendant-respondent, without taking consent of plaintiff-appellant, left her marital home in January, 2002 and is residing at her parental home since then. When all attempts by plaintiff-appellant for conciliation between parties failed and defendant-respondent did not return to her matrimonial home to live along plaintiff-appellant, Marriage Petition No. 536 of 2013 (Girish Chandra Srivastava Vs. Smt. Reeta Srivastava) under section 13 of Act, 1955 was filed by plaintiff-appellant for decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty, adultery and desertion. Apart from factual pleas in respect of aforesaid grounds, it was also pleaded in plaint that marriage between parties has been got solemnized by playing fraud. At the time of marriage, age of plaintiff was 43 years, whereas defendant-respondent was aged about 47 years. However, aforesaid fact was concealed and age of defendant-respondent was disclosed as 32 years. It was also alleged that at time of marriage defendant-respondent is younger to her brother Pankaj Khare, whereas true and correct fact is even at the time of marriage, defendant-respondent was elder to plaintiff-appellant. In elaboration of aforesaid ground, it was also pleaded that mensuration cycle of defendant-respondent has come to an end on account of her age. As such, defendant-respondent is incapable of reproducing a child. It was then pleaded that defendant-respondent committed cruelty both physical and mental upon plaintiff-appellant and his family members. Defendant-respondent was alleged to possess M.A. Degree, whereas, plaintiff-appellant is just High School. On account of such disparity, defendant-respondent used to make objectionable comments against plaintiff-appellant. It was also stated that defendant-respondent has failed to discharge her spousal obligations as well as her marriage obligations causing physical and mental cruelty to plaintiff-appellant. Defendant-respondent has refused to perform household jobs and has further entered into a scuffle with parents of plaintiff-appellant. False allegation regarding plaintiff-appellant being drunkard were also leveled by defendant-respondent causing mental agony to plaintiff-appellant. On the question of adulteress character of defendant-respondent, it was pleaded by plaintiff-appellant that defendant-respondent is in illegitimate relationship with Mahesh Khare her 'Jija' (husband of sister) and out of aforesaid illegal relationship, son has been born aged about 12 years. With respect to desertion by defendant-respondent, it was alleged by plaintiff-appellant that defendant-respondent has left house of plaintiff-appellant in January, 2002 without consent of plaintiff-appellant and inspite of best efforts for conciliation and request made by plaintiff-appellant requesting defendant-respondent to return to her marital home and co-habitate with plaintiff-appellant having failed, plaintiff-appellant filed matrimonial petition for grant of divorce.

(3.) Summons were issued to defendant-respondent but in spite of that, defendant-respondent did not appear. Consequently, service upon defendant-respondent was affected through substituted serviced by way of publication in daily news paper 'Aaj'. Inspite of aforesaid, defendant-respondent did not appear to contest marriage petition filed by plaintiff-appellant. Accordingly, Court below held service upon defendant-respondent to be sufficient. Consequently, marriage petition filed by plaintiff-appellant proceeded ex-parte against defendant-respondent.