By the Court.—This appeal under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,1984”) has arisen from judgement and decree dated 13th September, 2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Matrimonial Case No. 365 of 2002, making a declaratory decree that in view of divorce given by plaintiff to the defendant, she is no more wife of the plaintiff.

2. This is defendant’s appeal who is aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and decree.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:

4. Marriage between defendant-appellant and plaintiff-respondent was solemnized on 17th May 2000 with agreed Mehr of Rs.25,000/-. The plaintiff-respondent gave notice dated 27th March, 2002 to the appellant making a complaint that she is not discharging her matrimonial obligations properly and staying most of the time at her parent’s place. She went with her mother on 4th July, 2000 and has not returned to the residence of plaintiff till the date of notice. The plaintiff requested defendant to come back within three days failing which she may treat herself to have been divorced. Thereafter another notice was given on 30th April, 2002 stating that since defendant has not come back, she has been divorced and is no more wife of plaintiff. She is free to stay according to her own wishes.

5. Thereafter plaintiff filed Matrimonial Case No. 365 of 2002 in Family Court, Moradabad seeking a declaration that defendant is no more wife of plaintiff having already been divorced and she be restrained from representing herself to be wife of plaintiff. It was contested by defendant by filing written statement dated 1st January, 2003 wherein she denied allegations made against her that she has been staying at her parents residence most of times. So far as two notices are concerned, she stated in para 9 of written statement that giving three days’ notice itself was wrong since 28th March, 2002 was day of Holi Festival, 29th March, 2002 Dulhadi and Good Friday, and 31st March, 2002 Sunday. Therefore, even registered notice could not have been served within three days. She also stated that notice dated 30th April, 2002 is also superficial. The defendant was at the residence of plaintiff and no acknowledgement in respect to registered notice was kept on record.

6. She further pleaded that on 11th August, 2001 she was maltreated by plaintiff who beat her, demanded dowry and sent her to parent’s residence but thereafter kept defendant again after receiving Rs.50,000/- from her parents. Still he continued to demand Rs.1,00,000/-. and a car and turned out her from his house. On 3.5.2002, on persuasion it was decided that parties shall negotiate/mediate at the residence of defendant on 31st May, 2002. When plaintiff and his relatives raised repeated demand of dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-, a complaint was filed in Women Police Station. Pursuant thereto a case under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is pending in Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad. According to tenets of Quran Sharif divorce cannot be granted without any valid reason and there has to be an effort of conciliation between the parties as held in Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 2002 SC 3551. Defendant has learnt that plaintiff expelled his earlier wife after dealing her with a lot of cruelty.

7. Trial Court initially formulated four issues but issue 2, subsequently was deleted vide order dated 12th September, 2005 and suit proceeded for adjudication on issues 1, 3 and 4.

8. Issues 1, 3 and 4 read as under:

^^1& D;k oknh }kjk izfrokfnuh dks rykd ns fn;k x;k gS\^^

“1- Whether divorce has been given to the lady defendant by the plaintiff?”

^^3& D;k izfrokfnuh dks rykd lEcU/kh dksbZ uksfVl ugha fn;k x;k\^^

“3- Whether no Notice for Divorce was given to the lady defendant?”

^^4& vuqrks"k\^^

“4- Relief.” (English Translation by Court)

9. Issues 1 and 3 were taken together and answered in favour of plaintiff.