LAWS(PAT)-2012-6-96

VIVEK SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. ANUPAMA PRASAD

Decided On June 22, 2012
Vivek Shankar Prasad Appellant
V/S
Anupama Prasad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19,5.2009 passed in Matrimonial Case No.66 of 2003 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna whereby the divorce case filed by the appellant against his wife, the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion has been dismissed on contest with costs.

(2.) The parties have been heard at length on merits of the appeal for the purpose of its final disposal and also in respect of Limitation Petition i.e. IA No.5303 of 2009 and an application under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (IA No.4825 of 2011) for payment of maintenance to the respondent and her minor son, Utkarsh and also expenses of the litigation. The averments in the Interlocutory Applications have not been controverted. As per Limitation Petition, a delay of 52 days occurred in filing of the instant appeal on account of erroneous impression that appeal could be filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act for which the period of limitation would be 90 days. Since the appeal was filed within 90 days under the aforesaid impression, in the facts of the case, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the Limitation Petition stands allowed. The other Interlocutory Application (IA No.4825 of 2011) filed by the respondent for maintenance shall be considered after deciding the matter on merits.

(3.) There is no dispute on the facts that marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites at Patna on 14.1.1991. Both the parties are well educated. The appellant has M. Tech. degree in Building Science and Construction Management from JIT, Delhi and is well employed. The respondent, the wife of appellant is M.A. in Economics and MBA from Patna University. There was no problem in the marriage for a long number of years. A male child was born on 10.12.1994. The respondent lived with her husband at Delhi, Guwahati and Lucknow when he was posted at these places. At Lucknow, they lived together from September 1996 till June 2000 and thereafter on account of some problems arising between the parties allegedly the respondent continued to occupy the government/ official quarter allotted to the appellant after June 2000 but the appellant was forced to live separately.