GAYATRI DEVI Vs. BIRENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Though respondent has appeared on notice through their counsel but no one appears today on behalf of him.

(2.) Appellant is the wife, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce dated 13.01.2010 /28.01.2010, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau, Daltonganj in Matrimonial Case No. 33 of 2008. The matrimonial suit preferred by the petitioner-husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty in terms of section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed ex-parte. It appears from the perusal of the records that the opposite party-wife/ appellant herein had appeared on notice in the suit and also participated in a conciliatory exercise whereunder a joint compromise petition was also filed but not acted upon. Since she stopped appearing in the matter, notices were again issued upon her but she did not choose to appear or file any written statement. Consequently, she was debarred from filing written statement and the case was heard ex-parte.

(3.) Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7.7.2007, as per the case of the petitioner-husband, at village Mahugawan under Bishrampur police station, District-Palamau, as per Hindu rites and customs. He alleged that soon after the marriage and her stay at the matrimonial home, she left for the house of her parents for few days. However, when she came back, her attitude became rude. She started behaving roughly against the petitioner and other family members for no reason. Despite efforts by the family members to ignore her rude behaviour, she did not change and started indulging in use of filthy and abusive language against him and his family members. She started demanding a sum of Rs. 200/- per day for her expenses and wanted to live at her father's house along with the petitioner as Ghar Jamai as she was the only daughter. Her relatives started visiting petitioner's house frequently and used to instigate her to carry on her rude behaviour. They were threatened of false criminal cases including dowry case. Despite insistence also on the parents of the opposite party, her behaviour remain unchanged. She left for her parents house on 12.3.2008 along with all her ornaments, cash and usable articles, against the wishes of petitioner and his family members and efforts for amicable settlement by the petitioner, his parents and well-wishers went in vain. Her father, in fact, told the petitioner that he will get his daughter remarried. Despite that he went to bring her back on 29.3.2008 but was un-welcome in his in-laws house. He was also man handled and beaten up by the members of the family of the wife. He again made attempts on 4.6.2008 along with his relatives to bring her back but the same thing was repeated. He was compelled to file a case against her in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau, Daltonganj and also seek dissolution of marriage through the instant matrimonial suit on grounds of cruelty. The petitioner alleged physical and mental torture at the hands of the opposite party- wife and his family members with no hope of resumption of marriage. On these pleadings, the learned Family Court framed the following three issues for considerations: