NEELIMA SHRIVASTAVA Vs. LAXMIKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by the appellant /defendant against the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 2012 passed by the Trial Court in Case No.7A/12 HMA granting a decree of divorce.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff filed the present suit for divorce. He pleaded that the marriage between him and the appellant/defendant was solemnised on 23/4/2000 at Rai Barreily. After the marriage, the defendant had lived with the plaintiff upto 31/12/2002. At that time, the defendant was pregnant and she had gone to Morena with one Sunil kumar Shrivastava for some check up. Thereafter, she had given semen analysis report to the plaintiff and when she was asked why she had gone to Morena with Sunil Kumar Shrivastava, she left the house and threatened that she would teach a lesson to the plaintiff. A notice was sent to the defendant on 20/3/2010. It was mentioned in the notice that the defendant shall live with the plaintiff and perform the obligations as wife. However, the notice was sent back without any reply. The defendant lodged a report for offence punishable under section 498-A IPC against the family members of the plaintiff on the basis of which Criminal Case No.561/04 is pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalon at Urai. The plaintiff further levelled allegations that the defendant had illegal relationship with Sunil Kumar Shrivastava and she had been living with him and did not return to the house of the plaintiff.

(3.) Defendant in her written statement denied the pleadings of the plaint. She specifically denied that she had any relationship with Sunil Kumar Shrivastava or she had gone with him on 12/6/2001. She further pleaded that on 6/7/2003 the plaintiff had made demand of dowry from her and he had beaten her and also drove her out of the house. She further pleaded that she had been living with her mother and brother at Urai. She further denied that she had received any notice from the plaintiff and she does not want to live with him. She pleaded that the plaintiff wants to remarry and he had made a demand of dowry from the defendant, hence, it is not possible to live with the plaintiff. Earlier also, the plaintiff filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights which was dismissed on account of non-prosecution of the suit.