The right to procedural fairness mandates that all parties must be given adequate opportunity to present their case in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S. B. PD. SINGH, J.

Heard the parties.

2. The appellant has come up in this appeal against judgment and decree dated 27.01.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vaishali at Hajipur in Divorce Case No. 36 of 2012, whereby the petition filed by the respondent under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the 1955 Act') seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, has been allowed.

3. The pleaded case of the respondent in his petition under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent as per Hindu custom and rites on 03.12.2004. After marriage, the appellant came to her Sasural where she was being kept with all honour and dignity by the family members of the respondent. The appellant stayed at her matrimonial house for three months and during her stay at her matrimonial house, the behaviour and other activities and gestures reflected that she was not ready to be abide by the culture and dignity of her matrimonial house. In March 2005, she returned to her parents’ house. In July 2005, she again came to her Sasural and stayed there for six months and during this period, she broke all the family culture and prestige and showed detachment towards the inmates of his matrimonial house. She used to go her Maike without asking or taking permission from her husband and other in-laws family members. She always showed cruel behaviour towards the respondent and other family members and she pushed the life of the respondent in hell. Sometimes she ill treated with the old father of the respondent and compelled him to live on his own fate without any aid by her. The respondent made every possible steps to stop the appellant from such an ignorant and cruel behaviour towards him and other family members but her behaviour towards his family did not change, as a result of which, due to cruel behaviour of the appellant, the father of the respondent went into deep depression and ultimately died prematurely as respondent happens to be his only son.

4. The further case of the respondent is that the appellant never extended any service to her ailing father- in-law who ultimately died and she also did not attend the respondent when he met with an accident and his both upper limbs and back got fractured in 2010. The respondent also alleged that matrimonial relationship did not consummate as she always denied to have conjugal relationship with the respondent.

5. The appellant has completely failed to discharge her matrimonial obligation towards her husband and other in-laws members. The actions/misdeeds of the appellant have caused great torture and harassment in the mind of the respondent. This causes enormous pain and grief in the mind of the respondent and he found that in spite of giving best possible love and affection, there was no change in her behaviour towards him, his parents, relations and friends. The appellant has left the society and company of the respondent and went to her Maike in September, 2007. The matrimonial relation between the appellant and respondent has already irretrievably broken down and there is no hope of restoration of their conjugal life.

6. After filing of the Matrimonial Case, summons were issued to the opposite party/appellant. She appeared and filed her written statement in which she has stated that all the allegations made by the respondent against the conduct and behaviour of the appellant was denied and it has been averred that the appellant was mentally and physically tortured by the respondent for non-fulfilment of dowry demand and in December, 2007 she was forced to leave her matrimonial house