RANCHI, India, April 13 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on March 11:

1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2017 (decree signed on 09.06.2017) passed by Shri Niraj Kumar Srivastav, learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in T (M) S No. 542 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent has been dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned trial court.

4. The plaintiff (appellant herein) had preferred a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the defendant (respondent herein) under Section 13(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 in which it has been stated that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with the defendant on 24.06.2005 at Maithan according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage both the plaintiff and the defendant started residing at Dumka and out of the said wedlock two daughters were born to them. There was peace in the marital life of the plaintiff and the defendant for about 1-1.5 years. The plaintiff had encouraged the defendant to obtain a law degree and in pursuance of which the defendant got herself enrolled in Law College, Dhanbad for which the plaintiff helped her in various manners with the support of his parents. In the meantime, the defendant was pressurizing the plaintiff to sell the house at Dumka, send his parents to their native village and start staying with the defendant at Maithan. Since the plaintiff did not accede to such demands of the defendant, he was subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of the defendant and her family members. It has been stated that after obtaining law degree the defendant had started her practice without any consent or consultation with the plaintiff and his family members. The defendant was not willing to reside with the plaintiff who is unemployed as his wife. The plaintiff could not attend the birthday celebration of his second daughter on 10.07.2009 at Maithan due to sudden illness and when he reached Maithan on the following day he was abused and tortured. It has been stated that on a request made by the plaintiff in writing the parents of the defendant had come and a detailed discussion had taken place. The matter was amicably settled and the plaintiff went to Maithan on the next day and brought back the defendant to Dumka.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=eISc8sUCYnQFBVP%2BVeJCOGm6v6r1DCv%2F8hY3EPRfVhw4WkrxRb%2FCule4zg4SsZzi&caseno=FA/187/2017&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010285132017&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.