(1.) The wife Anita Devi has filed this First Appeal against the judgment dated 8.9.2003 and the decree following thereupon signed on 22.9.2003 by Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey,.the learned Addl. District Judge- 7th, Munger in Title Suit (Matrimonial Case) No. 28 of 1991/8 of 1997 whereby the learned Court below decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit for divorce.
(2.) The husband-respondent filed the aforesaid divorce suit, initially for declaration that the marriage of the petitioner with Anita Devi is a nullity being in contravention of Sec. 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was alleged that in the year 1975 when the husband-respondent had not attained majority he was forced to marry with the appellant. Subsequently, amendment was made in the plaint and prayer was made that the marriage be dissolved by decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is alleged that there is no consummation of marriage and the appellant did not come to his house as his wife because she was also a minor. Subsequently, he learnt that she was married with somebody else. Then the petitioner husband got employment at Rajpura Colliery in Dhanbad district. Thereafter, the appellant began to pressurise the petitioner husband by political pressure to keep her.
(3.) The wife-appellant thereafter complained to the authorities concerned against the husband causing mental cruelty and torture and humiliation. She filed false case against the husband and his family members alleging offence of theft cruelty torture and demand of dowry being Muffasil P.S. Case No. 65 of 1993 tinder Sections 498A, 323, 380, I.P.C. and Sec. 3/4, Dowry Prohibition Act after filing of this divorce case. Because of the false case, they were put behind the bar and suffer physical and mental agony in facing the trial for about 5 years. The Trial Court acquitted them from the charges under Sec. 323, 380, I.P.C. and Sec. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and thereby disbelieved the case of demand of dowry but convicted them under Sections 498A and 379, I.P.C. On Appeal, i.e., Cr. Appeal No. 136 of 1996, the appellate Court acquitted them disbelieving the case of the appellant. Because of this false criminal case, the petitioner husband and his family members were subjected to mental and physical torture and cruelty and, therefore, the petitioner husband is entitled for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.