VIKASH KUMAR DUBEY ALIAS VIKASH DUBEY ALIAS SAROJ DUBEY, SON OF SRI RAM MUNI DUBEY Vs. SAVITA DEVI WIFE OF VIKASH KUMAR DUBEY ALIAS VIKASH DUBEY ALIAS SAROJ DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner of Matrimonial Case No. 14 of 2003 (Vikash Kumar Deubey alias Saroj Dubey vs. Savita Devi), has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court 'sAct, 1984, and is directed against the judgment dated 24.7.2009, whereby his prayer for a decree of divorce against the respondent has been rejected, and instead the decree of judicial separation has been passed with the further direction to the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/ - per month to the respondent, and Rs. 1,000/ - to each of the minor sons (Mukul Kumar Dubey and Vipul Kumar Dubey), payable through the respondent.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant 'scase, he was married to the respondent as per the Hindu rites on 1.5.1995. The Gauna took place in the third week of February 1996, and she joined him in the matrimonial home oh 22.2.1996. The couple begot two sons, namely, Mukul Kumar Dubey and Vipul Kumar Dubey. It did not take long for the couple to develop strained relationship. She used to go to her Naihar without her husband 'sconsent and used to overstay there, showing unwillingness to return to her matrimonial home. This gave rise to suspicion in his mind which strengthened with passage of time that she has developed illicit relationship with Ram Awadhesh Dubey, her own Bahnoi. This was followed by number of cases at her instance, as a result of which the appellant alongwith his family members were in custody as under -trial prisoners for a fairly long time. Some of the cases are still pending adjudication in the district courts. It is his further case that the couple last lived together in December 2002, whereafter she has gone to her Naihar and has not returned back so far. On the other hand, the respondent 'scase is that she was meted out illtreatment by the appellant who is given to consumption of liquor and would, in state of intoxication, quite often, assault her. For the sake of children, she put up with the ill -treatment for quite some time. In view of the inexorable ill -treatment, the respondent was compelled to retrace her steps to her Naihar. Her further case is that she is still willing to go back to her matrimonial home and live with the appellant provided he desists from ill -treatment.

(3.) THE learned trial court has found that the appellant 'sallegation about adultery is in the realm of suspicion and has remained unsubstantiated. The appellant has also not been able to prove that the respondent is a case of mental disorder. He has further found that the appellant has been subjecting the respondent to fairly continuous ill -treatment as a result of which she has been compelled to go back to her Naihar with her two sons. The respondent has subjected the appellant and his family members to various litigations in which they have been in custody as under -trial prisoners for a fairly long time and most of those cases are still pending. He has also found that the suspicion in the appellant 'smind about the adulterous behaviour of the respondent coupled with ill -treatment, pendency of litigations etc. has resulted in complete break -down of the marriage. The respondent is willing to live then the husband but, in view of the situation, it is neither possible nor advisable to make an effort to restore the matrimonial relationship. Hence the impugned judgment.