The appellant must provide credible evidence for claims of cruelty and adultery for a divorce to be granted, as mere allegations without proof do not meet legal standards.

JUDGMENT :

S. B. PD. SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of respondents in spite of valid service of notice.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 impugning the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Hajipur, Vaishali in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No. 386 of 2019, whereby the matrimonial suit, preferred by the appellant, for a decree of divorce, on dissolution of marriage, has been dismissed.

3. The case of the appellant as per petition filed before the Family Court is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with respondent No.1 on 23.06.2004 as per the Hindu Rites and Custom. Out of the wedlock two children were born. The respondent No. 1 was cruel and indisciplined since the inception of marriage. She used to misbehave with the appellant and other in-laws family members. She did not used to cook food on time and also used to abuse and misbehave with her in-laws family members and the appellant as well. The respondent No. 1 is a teacher and used to stay out of her matrimonial house for long hours after the school. She has developed illicit relationship with one Ajay Bihari Prasad Singh (respondent No. 2), who is also a teacher in her school and gave birth to the child of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 has also filed Divorce Case No.183/2013 for divorcing his wife because of his affair with the respondent No. 1. The appellant has no relationship with the his wife-respondent No. 1 since four years, prior to the filing of the divorce petition before the Family Court. The appellant, therefore, prayed that the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1 be declared dissolved and a decree of divorce be passed in his favour.

4. In response to the summon/notice issued by the Court, respondent/O.P appeared and filed her reply/written statement.

5. In her written statement/reply, the respondent No. 1 has stated that the appellant and his family members tortured her for non fulfilment of demand of dowry, for which she has lodged a case against him and his family members. The appellant did not use to spend any amount on his family and it was the respondent No. 1 who was looking after the children. In fact the appellant is engaged in an illicit relationship and is also habitual drunkard. The house of the appellant was constructed by respondent No. 1 but she has been ousted along with her minor children from her matrimonial house. The respondent No. 1 denies to have any illicit relationship with any person.

6. On the basis of the rival contentions of both the parties, following issues were framed in this case by the learned Trial Court :-

1. Whether the case as framed is maintainable?

2. Whether the appellant has cause of action to file this case?

3. Whether the behaviour of the opposite party was cruel towards the applicant ?

4. Whether the applicant has been living in adultery as alleged ?

5.Whether the applicant is entitled to get a decree of divorce against the O.P?

6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other relief or reliefs?

7. During course of trial, altogether six witnesses have been produced on behalf of the appellant which are P.W.1- Rajni Ranjan(appellant himself), P.W. 2-Kallu Paswan, P.W. 3- Hira Lal Paswan (co-villager of the appellant). P.W.4-Umesh Sah(co-villager of the appellant), P.W.5-Kailash Prasad Sah (father of the appellant), P.W.6- Pankaj Kunar(co-villager of the appellant).

8. The respondent No. 1 did not produce any documentary or oral evidence.

9. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has held that appellant has not proved that he was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the respondent No.1 as well as adultery by the respondent No. 1 and the case filed by the appellant is not maintainable and also the appellant has no valid cause of action to file the instant case. Accordingly, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the appe