RADHESHYAM TIWARI Vs. SARITA ALIAS TARAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 6. 8. 1988 passed in First Appeal No. 174 of 1986, whereby the learned Single Judge has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Durg. in Civil Suit No. 6-A/85 decided on 4. 8. 1988.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are thus : The appellant was married to the respondent on 25. 6. 1981. After the marriage they lived together as husband and wife at Durg. The marriage was not consummated as the respondent-wife was not keen for the same despite repeated demands by the appellant-husband. The appellant-husband came to know that the respondent-wife had illegitimate relations with her real uncle Raghuvir Prasad. The respondent-wife used to go away frequently to her father's place at Kawardha where she ultimately filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the appellant-husband for maintenance and that was compromised in 1983. Thereafter, the couple had come back to Durg to live together. In March, 1984, while living with the husband, the respondent-wife filed a petition again before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance. In that petition, the respondent-wife had prayed for maintenance and alternatively had asked that she may be permitted to stay from her husband on her own accord, she will not claim any maintenance. Accordingly, that petition came to an end after recording the statements of the appellant-husband and respondent-wife. Thereafter, the respondent-wife left her matrimonial house on 7. 7. 1984 for good and therefore, the appellant-husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that divorce petition, two pleas were taken by the appellant-husband that the marriage between him and the respondent-wife was not consummated and secondly about the chastity of his wife. The Trial Court framed five issues and after recording the necessary evidence of both the parties, come to the conclusion that both the allegations have not been stand established. Hence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against that judgment and decree, the appellant-husband filed an appeal before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court also affirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, by judgment dated 6. 8. 1988. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the records.