PATNA, India, Sept. 10 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 13:
Heard the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1984 impugning the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2020 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 203 of 2018, whereby the petition, filed by the appellant-wife to nullify the marriage with the respondent-husband solemnized on 06.02.2016, has been dismissed.
3. The case of the appellant-wife as per the petition filed before the Family Court is that the marriage of the appellant with the respondent was solemonized on 06.02.2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals and at the time of mariage, her parents had given a gift to the respondent worth Rs. 20 lakhs. After marriage, the appellant started leading matrimonial live with the respondent, however, after some times, her in-laws family members started torturing and assaulting the appellant to meet their illegal demand of Rs. 20 lakhs from her father for establishing a medical clinic at Purnea City. Ultimately, father of the appellant took loan of Rs. 5 lakhs and gave it to the respondent but again they started pressuring for another Rs. 15 lakhs. It is alleged that on 10.09.2017, the respondent made an attempt to kill the appellant by burning and opened gas cylinder in the kitchen but somehow she saved her life and since then, she is residing at her parents' house. The appellant has lodged Purnea (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 49 of 2017 on 23.09.2017 against the respondent and other inlaws family members under Sections 498(A), 120(B), 307, 511, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent, in order to save his skin has filed Matrimonial Suit No. 190 of 2017 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent has also filed Maintenance Case No. 17 of 2018 on 30.01.2018 against the respondent in which the respondent was directed to make payment of Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to the appellant. The appellant has made all her efforts to reconcile the issue and lead a conjugal live with the respondent but all her efforts went in vein since respondent was not interested to continue matrimonial relationship with the appellant. Hence, the appellant has filed the divorce petition for dissolution of marriage.
4. After filing of the present suit, summons/notices were issued by the Court to the respondent-husband. He appeared and filed his written statement. The respondent has stated in his written statement that all the allegations levelled against the appellant is false and concocted. The respondent has never demanded Rs. 20 lakhs for establishment of his clinic as before marriage with the appellant, he had established his clinic. The respondent has made every efforts to bring back the appellant into her matrimonial fold but it was the appellant who was not interested to live with the respondent. Ultimately, the respondent has filed Matrimonial Suit No. 190 of 2017 for restitution of conjugal rights. The appellant has been living at her parents house since 10.09.2017 without any reason. The allegation of the appellant that an attempt was made to set her on fire by opening gas cylinder has not been proved.
5. In order to prove her case, the appellant has produced six witnesses namely P.W. 1 Priti Raj (appellant), P.W. 2 Malanand Mahto (father of appellant), P.W. 3 Anil Kumar Singh, P.W. 4 Raj Kumar Shrivastava, P.W. 5 Anokhe Lal and P.W. 6 Bindeshwari Mahto.
6. The respondent has also produced three witnesses in order to falsify the case of the appellant which are D.W. 1 Shishir Kumar (respondent), D.W. 2 Surendra Prasad Singh (father-in-law of the appellant) and D.W. 3 Shanti Devi (mother-in-law of the appellant).
The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MiM5MSMyMDIxIzEjTg==-FkLqohaBhBk=
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
