The burden of proof in establishing non-consummation of marriage and allegations of dowry demands lies with the party making the allegations, and admissibility of reports and documents as evidence is governed by the Family Courts Act.

JUDGMENT

B.B. Mangalmurti, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.07.2016 and the decree following thereupon sealed and signed on 28.07.2016 passed by Shri Bal Mukund Roy, Principal Judge Family Court, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Matrimonial Suit No. 29 of 2010 whereby the suit filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 13(1)(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.

2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellant Satya Narayan Mahato being husband of respondent Ambika Mahato filed a suit under Section 13(1)(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of divorce. The marriage between them was solemnized on 03.05.2008 after following the custom prevalent in Hindu society. The further case is that the respondent refused to establish physical relation with the appellant on the ground that she is in love with other person. On enquiry the respondent replied that her parents knowing her love affairs forcibly fixed and solemnized her marriage. To save his social prestige, the appellant tried to begin conjugal life with her. The idea did not click and ultimately he reported the matter to his father who called the parents of the respondent who came and took back the respondent with them. This time she stayed in the matrimonial house for about six days. In the month of June, 2008 the father of appellant requested the respondent to come on the occasion of the marriage ceremony of Shibani, daughter of Prafulla Mahato, younger brother of father of appellant. She again stayed for six days. The further case is that the marriage was never consummated between the parties although they lived together for some time. The appellant was working as an Electrician and was earning very small amount. Due to non-consummation of marriage, he was suffering with mental agony and was feeling ashamed in the society. In the month of July, 2009 the father of the petitioner went and brought the respondent but she stayed only for five days and during this period also no physical relation could be established. The mother of the respondent came and took her back. The appellant received information from some relatives and unknown persons that the respondent gave birth to a child although her pregnancy and giving birth to a child was never disclosed by the parents of the respondent. It is evident that after solemnization of marriage, the respondent had voluntarily sexual intercourse with her lover or someone else causing mental cruelty upon the appellant. Since the marriage was not consummated from the date of marriage till July, 2009, the decree of divorce was prayed.

3. The case of the respondent as per the averments made in the written statement is that after solemnization of marriage at Jamshedpur according to Hindu rites and customs and after Bidai she came to her matrimonial house where she cohabited with the petitioner. Her parents, after selling their cultivable lands, spent huge amount on the marriage but the appellant''s family demanded Rupees Three lakhs as dowry for which she was also being tortured physically and mentally. The respondent became pregnant in her matrimonial house. She was taken to her parents'' house on 17.09.2009 while she was pregnant of four months. The appellant''s family members were on visiting terms and had also provided some medicines as per the advice of the doctors of Tata Motors Hospital, Telco, Jamshedpur. It was further stated that during the month of November, 2009 the appellant along with his parents and Nanad visited the house of respondent to see her condition and she was further asked by them to come after delivery of child with Three lakhs of rupees. Thereafter the appellant stopped visiting the respondent''s house. On 22.03.2010 the respondent gave birth to a male child in Tata Motors Hospital, Telco, Jamshedpur. Presently the respondent along with her minor son are living in her parents'' house. The appellant never came to see his minor son or the respondent, although sh