The non-framing of an issue in divorce proceedings does not invalidate the court's findings if both parties were aware of the claims and evidence presented.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer

1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 19(2) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the Order/Judgment dated 26.09.2022 and decree dated 30.09.2022 passed in Original Suit No. 519 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro filed under Section 13(1)(i) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the plaint as has been incorporated in the impugned judgment, needs to be enumerated, which read as under: -

3. It is the case of the appellant in brief is that his marriage with the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 28.11.2016 as per Hindu rites and custom at Bokaro. After marriage, wife/respondent No.1 came to her matrimonial home on 29.11.2016 and after few days, she started talking on mobile phone with some other person and use objectionable words regarding sex. The appellant and his father inquired, the then respondent No.1 started humiliating them and when appellant was out of station for his employment the respondent No.1 always used to talk with one Rahul Singh (respondent No.2).

4. Further, when the appellant went to Raipur and the respondent No.1 used to talk with respondent No.2 and others in midnight. When the appellant checked mobile phone of the respondent No.1, he found objectionable messages and on inquiry, she confessed her guilt in writing. She always used to send objectionable messages to the respondent No.2. She has disclosed that under pressure of her parents, she has solemnized marriage with him and she also asked for divorce. It is not possible for him to live with the respondent No.1. Cause of action arose on 02.08.2018 and also on several dates since the date of marriage. Prayer has been made to pass a decree for dissolution of marriage in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the suit for divorce was filed.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop the appellant/petitioner had preferred an Original Suit being Original Suit No. 522 of 2019 for dissolution of his marriage arraying one Rahul Singh as respondent No.2.

6. Accordingly, the notice was issued and on notice, the wife /respondent No.1 appeared but the respondent No.2 did not appear. The respondent No.1 in her written statement has put forward her case that whole case of the petitioner is false and concocted. It has been stated that she has filed C.P. Case No. 834 of 2018 under Sections 4 98A, 323, 406 IPC read with Section 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed this case on false grounds just to save his skin from criminal case filed against him.

7. It has further been stated that after her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and torture on 29.04.2017 when she was in her matrimonial home. She never talked with other persons and never indulged in objectionable talk with others. Neither she misbehaved with her in-laws nor ever talked with other persons. On the contrary, she was subjected to cruelty and torture for demand of dowry. She never sent any messages to respondent No.2 from her mobile phone and the WhatsApp chat alleged to be conversation in between her and respondent No.2 rather false and concocted documents are prepared by the brother of the petitioner/appellant under conspiracy.

8. It has further been stated that she had no relationship with Rahul Singh. She has never accepted her guilt, nor have signed any document. Her parents have never abused the petitioner and his parents. In fact, the petition has never accepted her as wife and never took her to his workplace. She was asked for Rs. 5,00,000/-, One Car and Act as dowry and due to non-fulfillment, she was subjected to cruelty and torture.

9. Further, on the basis of false documents of WhatsApp chatting, the petitioner has filed this case to get rid of her. Cognizance was taken u/S. 498A IPC read with Section 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act on 06.04.2019 against the petitioner/appellant and his family m