SANJAY KUMAR Vs. PRATIMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is preferred under S.19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 calling in question the legal substantiality of the order dated 23-5-2007 passed in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 101 of 2005 (erroneously written as 101 of 2006 in the order) by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhagalpur.

(2.) THE appellant husband preferred an application under S.13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity, "the Act") for dissolution of marriage and to pass a decree for divorce. It was put forth in the application that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 20th of April, 2004. After entering into the wedlock the respondent remained in the matrimonial home for five days and thereafter proceeded to her parental home without any consultation with the appellant. After the wife - respondent left for the parental home, the appellant had to leave for Delhi where he holds job and he came to his native village Dumaria in Durgapuja holidays. He took the railways tickets and approached the wife to come to Delhi with him but she declined to accompany. In such a situation, the appellant was constrained to come to Delhi alone. Thereafter, the father - in - law of the appellant asked him on telephone to come to Pannuchak. On 23-3-2005 the respondent - wife telephoned him threatening that if you come to Pannuchak he would be killed either by the respondent herself or by the family members as she has no relation with him. Again on 3-6-2005 she telephoned that he should not try to create any kind of obstruction in her happiness. Despite the aforesaid telephone calls, the appellant came to village Dumaria on 4-6-2005 and after narrating all these facts to her parents and other respectful members of the society proceeded with his father Ram Prasad Mandal and one Radhy Shyam Mandal to village Pannuchak on 12-6-2005 with intention to bring back the respondent but she declined to accede the request and stated in a categorical manner that she did not like to live with him as he was suffering from tuberculosis. In this situation, the appellant has no option but to leave for Delhi on 20th April, 2004 alone. In this factual backdrop, the application under S.13(1)(ib) of the Act was filed.

(3.) THE husband examined five witnesses to substantiate the allegation made by him. The learned Family Judge expressed the opinion that the appellant - husband was suffering from tuberculosis as no documentary evidence has been produced before the Court to show that he was free from any disease. The learned Family Court, as evident from the order, opined that the respondent - wife had a reasonable cause to stay away from the appellant - husband and the appellant has not been able to prove anything as regards cruelty. Being of this view, he directed for judicial separation.