VINAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. SABITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein, who is admittedly, the husband of the sole respondent herein, filed an application, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of dissolution of his marriage with Smt. Sabita Devi, i.e., the respondent herein, which was solemnized in the year 1982, according to the Hindu rites and customs, the decree for dissolution of marriage having been sought on the ground, inter alia, that she had deserted him, his attempts, seeking restitution of his conjugal rights, had failed and, for the last 24 years, they had been living separately, This application gave rise to Divorce Case No. 124 of 2007. Resisting the application, whereby divorce was sought for, the respondent herein, i.e., the wife of the applicant -appellant, filed a written statement, wherein she denied the allegations levelled against her by her husband that she had deserted him. Her case, on the other hand, was that she had been ousted fro in her matrimonial home by raising demands for dowry and she had, to therefore, lodge, in this regard, a First Information Report, at Barh, which came to be registered as Barh Police Station Case No. 128 of 1988, under Sections 342/323/307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) THE respondent herein also alleged, in her written statement, that the applicant -appellant had already married one Sunita Devi and that a case, in this regard, had been lodged by her under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, which was still pending and to save himself fro in impending conviction, the present case, seeking dissolution of marriage, had been instituted after 24 years of marriage. It has further been contended by the respondent herein, in her written statement, that she had not even been paid maintenance despite order having been passed, on 30th June, 2011, in Maintenance Case No. 63 of 2006, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali, Hajipur, directing the present appellant to pay maintenance. She has also alleged that after ousting her fro in her matrimonial house, the appellant made no efforts to bring her back.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order, dated 13 -12 -2012, passed, in Divorce Case No. 124 of 2007, by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali, this appeal has been preferred.