DIBYA KISHORE PATEL Vs. TANOJ KUMARI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6th December, 1995 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Original Suit No.45 of 1993/Misc. Case No.41 of 1993, a suit for permanent alimony and return of articles.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present case are as follows: Appellant-husband is the defendant. Respondent nos.1 and 2 are his wife and son respectively filed the suit as plaintiffs for permanent alimony and return of the properties presented by her father to the bridegroom at the time of marriage. Admittedly, marriage was solemnized as per caste, custom and rites on 4.4.1987 at Jhurimal in the district of Sundargarh. However, plaintiff no.1 was tortured from day one due to insufficient dowry. Accordingly, on 7.4.1987 the wife returned to her father's house and the husband went to his working place in Delhi. On 6.5.1987, she went to Delhi with her father. She was humiliated and assaulted for non-fullfillment of demanded cash and gold ornaments. The appellant-husband also misbehaved the father-in-law. Finding no other way, her father came back to Rourkela. She stayed in Delhi and was subjected to further torture.

(3.) AFTER receiving notice, defendant filed his written statement admitting the marriage but denied all other allegations. He pleaded that on 17.4.1989, plaintiff no.1 came to her parents place to attend a marriage ceremony of her maternal uncle at village Ghantimal against the wishes of the defendant. She, came, over stayed and did not return to Delhi and subsequently wanted to appear M.Phil Examination. She gave birth to a male child on 17.10.1989. However, he did not come to Rourkela as he had to appear M.Tech. Semester Examination and informed plaintiff no.1 to come back to Delhi which she avoided. Therefore, he filed Original Suit No.45 of 1991 for restitution of conjugal rights. The said suit being dismissed, plaintiff no.1 filed Original Suit No.45 of 1993 with false allegations. She joined as a teacher in a Public School having income of Rs.50,000/- from the service and private tuition. Hence, she was not entitled to any maintenance. Defendant also stated that he was ready and willing to take back his wife and the child. He being the eldest son of his father had to maintain his parents, unemployed brother and meet the litigation expenses. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit along with misc. case.