PRIYANKA SAHU Vs. RAJIV KUMAR SHAKYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act 1984 is preferred by the appellant/wife being crestfallen by the judgment dtd. 20/3/2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in RCSHM No.10789/2018 whereby the divorce petition preferred by the appellant under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955") has been dismissed.

(2.) Precisely stated facts of the case are that marriage of appellant and respondent was solemnized on 30/11/2005 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Neendad Vaya Vishwakarma, Jaipur. The marriage of appellant and respondent was love marriage, therefore, marriage of couple was performed at Jaipur. Out of the wedlock of the parties, birth of Srishti took place who is at present 19 years old. After marriage, behaviour of respondent/husband and his family members was changed and they started taunting the appellant on the issue that because of her, they faced the criminal case of kidnapping. Not only this, respondent and his family members started demanding dowry of Rs.2.00 lacs and one motorcycle. Since the demand of dowry was not fulfilled by the father of appellant, therefore, on 17/1/2009 respondent and his family members assaulted the appellant and thrown her out along with her daughter from the house. On the complaint made by the appellant, a case for offence under Sec. 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 /4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the respondent and his family members in which they were convicted vide judgment dtd. 28/2/2015 for 2-2 years' RI.

(3.) Domestic incompatibility continued between the parties despite lapse of four years. As a result of domestic incompatibility, in the year 2009, appellant/wife left the matrimonial house along with her daughter Srishti and started residing at her maternal home. Thereafter, appellant preferred a divorce petition which was dismissed by the Family Court, Gwalior vide judgment dated 07-10- 2013 while the application preferred by the respondent/husband under Sec. 9 of the Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. Both the judgments were challenged by the appellant by preferring First Appeal No.249/2013 and First Appeal No.250/2013.