NEELU JAIN, WIFE OF PRAVIN CHANDRA, DAUGHTER OF SRI ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Vs. PRAVIN CHANDRA, SON OF LATE PARMESHWAR CHANDRA AGRAWAL, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MEENA BAZAR, POLICE STATION MADHUPUR, DISTRICT DEOGHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard both the parties. The lower Court records have been called for and perused.

(2.) The appellant no. 1 is the wife. The sole respondent is the husband. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2008 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhojpur at Ara in Matrimonial Case No. 67 of 2001 (169 of 2005) whereby the learned Principal Judge allowed the application of the husband-respondent and granted decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. While doing so, he also noted that when the wife was called to the Court and asked to go and live with the husband, she clearly refused.

(3.) The basic facts are that the appellant no. 1 and the respondent were married on 25.11.1993 according to Hindu rites. The husband resided with his parents which became matrimonial house and that was at Madhupur (District Deoghar) now in the State of Jharkhand. Soon after marriage, on 04.09.1994 the couple was blessed with a daughter. Sometime thereafter the husband's parents being aged became ill, but the wife refused to discharge her obligation to look after her in-laws. She started persuading the husband to separate from his family as she was not interested in looking after or caring for her in-laws. In order to have an amicable relationship the husband agreed to live separately. But then feeling guilty of neglecting his parents he tried to go back, which enraged the wife and ultimately on or about 27.08.1996 i.e., almost two years after the marriage, she left the matrimonial house. The husband learnt that in fact she had already joined B. Ed., course through her father at Phulwarisharif at Patna and she had intended to carry on with her studies neglecting her matrimonial obligations. Lastly on 12.02.1997 the wife finally moved out of her matrimonial house bag and baggage. Thus, when the suit was filed in 2001 the wife had already been away from her matrimonial house for over three years. Upon notice, the wife appeared in the proceedings and filed written statement submitting that the husband and her father-in-law demanded dowry and used to inflict torture which forced her to ultimately abandon the matrimonial house. She stated that her husband demanded Rs. 50,000.00 from her father. She further stated that when the girl was born, neither the husband nor his family members came at the time of birth of the child. Her further case was that at one point she was brutally assaulted and had to be treated by a doctor. She further alleged that the ill-treatment meted out to her as a consequence of non-payment of dowry, her father had a heart attack. She denied that her father-in-law or mother-in-law were ill and needed to be looked after by the daughter-in-law. She further said that she had decided to do B. Ed. course so that she could become a teacher and would be able to satisfy her in-laws with the increased income as a Government teacher. She further alleged that her ill-treatment led her to approach the President of Mahila Samiti to interfere in the matter, whereas her husband's father virtually refused to allow her stay with the family. She further stated that when she asked for maintenance from her husband, the husband wrongly filed this case for divorce. When the matter ultimately could not be patched up, the learned Principal Judge called both the parties and the wife refused to live with the husband. The matter went to trial.