LAWS(PAT)-2017-3-15

ARVIND KUMAR PRASAD, SON OF SRI RAJENDRA PRASAD AT PRESENT RESIDING AT A Vs. GEETA PRASAD WIFE OF ARVIND KUMAR PRASAD, DAUGHTER OF SRI MAHESHWAR DAS, RESIDING AT M.I.G. FLAT NO 287, LOHIYA NAGAR, P.S.

Decided On March 15, 2017
Arvind Kumar Prasad, Son Of Sri Rajendra Prasad At Present Residing At A Appellant
V/S
Geeta Prasad Wife Of Arvind Kumar Prasad, Daughter Of Sri Maheshwar Das, Residing At M.I.G. Flat No 287, Lohiya Nagar, P.S. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 559 of 2007, inter alia, dismissing the prayer for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act).

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the appellant was married to the respondent on 15.05.1997 at Latehar, Jharkhand as per Hindu rites and customs, after which the appellant returned to Delhi and the respondent stayed at her parental home at Patna. After about two years of marriage, Gauna (second marriage) was performed in the month of Nov., 1999 and the respondent came to reside with the appellant at Delhi.

(3.) According to the appellant, from the very beginning the respondent did not allow the appellant to even touch her and further threatened that she would run out of the house in order to insult the appellant. As such there had been no physical relationship nor consummation of marriage between the parties since their marriage was solemnized. There had been a complete suppression about the respondent's mental status and attitude by the respondent and her parents and thus they committed fraud with him. Despite the appellant trying to pacify her, the respondent's behaviour did not change resulting in considerable mental cruelty and torture to the appellant and his family members. The respondent further threatened to implicate the appellant and his family members in false cases if the husband's unwanted approaches continued. She stated that she did not like him as the appellant was of dark complexion, used to stammer and was still unemployed. Being the daughter of a Deputy Superintendent of Police in Bihar Police, she claimed to be living a luxurious life before the marriage but had been married to a Kangal (pauper). She claimed to have affinity for a boy named Pinku and declared herself as widow, having washed off her vermilion and broken her bangles. On one occasion, upon being scolded by her father, she jumped from the second floor of her parental house and suffered fracture of her leg.