RANJIT UPADHAYA Vs. USHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Matrimonial Case No. 126 of 2001 was filed by the Appellant before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna, under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking divorce from the Respondent. The grounds urged were cruelty and desertion. The Respondent had earlier filed a Suit for restitution of conjugal rights and also a criminal prosecution under Sec. 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code registered as Arrah (M) P.S. Case No. 166 of 2000. The two cases filed by the Respondent were not pursued on account of subsequent compromise which ultimately failed and came to be dismissed for non -prosecution. The Family Court on 29.3.2007 dismissed the plea for divorce. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the parties were married on 18.6.1993. The Respondent did not have any respect and neither did she take care of the family members of the Appellant. She tried to command and dictate the family from a position of superiority. She lacked the humbleness and behaviour as a wife and daughter -in -law. Three months after the marriage she left the matrimonial home without the consent of the Appellant or his parents. She returned in January 1997. The Respondent denied respect to the Appellant's father declining to take permission from him for any activity. In June 1997 she left the matrimonial home again. All efforts to bring her back were in vain. She desired the Appellant to live with her at her parental home. The state of affairs continued till January 2001. A compromise was arrived at in the Sec. 498 -A IPC proceeding whereafter the Respondent came to the matrimonial home in February 2001. She again started to misbehave causing mental and physical torture to the Appellant and his family using abusive slangs. On two/three occasions she attempted to assault the mother -in -law. There has been no conjugal relationship between the parties since May 1997. The respondent had deserted the matrimonial home. The marriage failed because of her cruel and obstinate behaviour. There had been willful denial of co -habitation and conjugal relationship for which reliance was placed on : 2001 (1) PLJR 456 (Raj Kumar Jaiswal vs. Smt. Mamta Jaiswal). The Family Court, in the facts, should have allowed divorce.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Respondent denied the allegations. It was submitted that immediately after going to the matrimonial home, demands for dowry were made. When matters became intolerable she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Notwithstanding the behaviour of her in -laws and other family members she filed Matrimonial Case No. 18 of 1999 for restitution of conjugal rights under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On account of the subsequent compromise, she did not pursue the case including the criminal prosecution. Both were therefore dismissed for non -prosecution. It was the cruel behaviour of the Appellant and his family members that forced her to leave the matrimonial home.

(3.) The witnesses on behalf of the Appellant, apart from himself, were his father, mother, brother and a friend. The Respondent apart from herself examined her father and her brother.