ABHAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. SOBHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment dtd. 13/6/2017 passed by Ld. Principal Judge Family Court, Aurangabad in Matrimonial Case Nos. 120 of 2013 whereby the divorce petition of the petitioner filed under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed ex parte finding that no ground is proved for dissolution of marriage as provided under the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) The case of the appellant-husband/plaintiff as per the pleading is that the petitioner and the respondent were married on 23/6/2012 as per Hindu rites and customs at village Dhandhopur in district Gaya. However, the matrimonial home of the parties was at village Tikari in the district of Aurangabad, as the appellant-husband is resident of the place in the district of Aurangabad where respondent-wife had joined him and lived for 10 days after ceremonial function of Gauna (Second Marriage). The respondent-wife again joined the matrimonial home of the appellant-husband at village Tekari, the residential place of the husband appellant and lived there for 45 days. Thereafter, the respondent-wife fell ill and was treated at Gaya by Dr. Shobha Rani at the cost of appellant-husband and after the treatment she again joined the matrimonial home of the appellant-husband. As per the further averment made in the divorce petition, the respondent wife came to the matrimonial home of the appellant- husband in the month of January 2013 after a Panchayati was held at the residence of the father of the respondent-wife and she lived at the matrimonial house till 19/10/2013 when she left the matrimonial home with all her belongings. It is also averred in the divorce petition that the appellant-husband visited the matrimonial home of the respondent wife to take her back to the matrimonial home but she refused to return. It is also averred that appellant and respondent have lived like husband and wife till 19/10/2013. It is also alleged that the respondent wife has illicit relationship with one of her villagers and he frequently visited her at the place of her Maike during her stay there in the absence of her father and on account of this illicit relationship with her villager, she wanted to live at her Maike.

(3.) The respondent wife had not appeared before the Family Court despite service of notice and hence, she was proceeded ex parte. As such, there was no written statement filed on her behalf.