IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that mere separation does not justify divorce without evidence of cruelty or desertion, emphasizing the burden of proof lies with the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Amrendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 10.5.2022 (decree signed on 17.5.2022), passed by Shri Gati Krishna Tewary, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court-2, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 182 of 2016 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 court below:-

4. The applicant (appellant herein) had filed a suit under section 13(1) (ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (respondent herein also) in which inter alia it has been stated that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 19.5.2001 as per Hindu Rites and Customs at Jamshedpur and out of the said wedlock a son was born on 12.7.2002. The respondent had resided with the applicant continuously for forty days from the date of her marriage and thereafter on one pretext or the other she intermittently started residing at her parents’ house and when she was carrying of about 2-3 months she deserted the applicant in the first week of January, 2002 and since then she is residing at her parents house. The respondent was admitted in Tata Main Hospital in the name of the applicant and all the expenditure and medical treatment was done in the name of the applicant. The applicant had gone to his inlaws place but he was not allowed even to see the baby. It has been stated that the applicant made all efforts to convince and bring back the respondent to his house and when she refused the applicant was compelled to prefer a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in MAT Suit No. 103/03, in which the respondent had appeared but since no positive reply was submitted by the respondent, the applicant had to withdraw the suit. In the year 2005, the applicant came to know that a criminal case has been instituted by the respondent against him and his family members being Telco P.S. Case No. 157/05 under section 498A, 506/34 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act in which the applicant, his parents and brother had been convicted for the offence under section 498A IPC. The order of conviction and sentence was challenged in Cr. Appeal No. 190/10 in which except the applicant the other accused persons were acquitted vide judgment dated 22.9.2014. It has been stated that the applicant had preferred a revision application before the High Court in Cr. Revision No. 1109/14, in which the applicant is on bail. The respondent had filed a maintenance case against the applicant being Misc. Case No.51/04 in which vide order dated 8.7.2008, a sum of Rs.2,500/-had been directed to be paid by the applicant to the respondent. The applicant is regularly making payment of maintenance to the respondent in terms of the direction of the court. The respondent had filed an application for enhancement of the maintenance amount under section 127(1) Cr. P.C. being Misc. Case No. 153/09 which is still pending. It has been stated that the respondent without any reasonable cause is residing separately from the applicant since the month of January, 2002.

5. On being noticed the respondent had appeared and filed her written statement in which the allegations levelled against her has been denied. She has stated that she was forced to institute the criminal case against the applicant and his family members on account of the torture he had to undergo at the hands of the applicant. The respondent had on several occasions made attempts to restore normalcy in their conjugal relationship but such efforts proved futile. She has expressed her desire to resume conjugal relationship with the applicant. She has stated that in M