JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Misra, J.

1. This plaintiff's Appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1984) filed by Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary (husband) challenging judgment dated 27.03.2012 and decree dated 10.04.2012 passed by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Varanasi in Petition No. 360 of 2004 (Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Savita) whereby aforesaid petition for divorce filed by the plaintiff-appellant under Section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955) has been dismissed.

2. We have heard Mr. Ashok Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for plaintiff-appellant and Mr. Sanjiv Singh, learned counsel representing defendant-respondent.

3. The plaint case set up by plaintiff-appellant is that marriage of plaintiff-appellant was solemnized with defendant-respondent on 03.06.1994 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. Defendant-respondent came to the house of plaintiff once or twice and again back to her parental home. The defendant-respondent never established conjugal relationship with plaintiff-appellant at her marital home. According to plaintiff-appellant it was disclosed by defendant-respondent to him that her marriage has been solemnized with plaintiff-appellant, forceably, and contrary to her wishes, whereas she has already surrendered physically and mentally to another person. Whenever defendant-respondent came to her marital home, she never stayed for more than three or four days nor established conjugal relationship with plaintiff-appellant. In order to make married life happy plaintiff-appellant made many efforts to resolve deadlock but in vain. However, looking at the prestige of his family, plaintiff-appellant kept quiet. The defendant-respondent came to her marital home on 04.06.1994 and after staying about three days, went to her parental home on 07.04.1994 in the company of her brother and relatives. Thereafter, plaintiff-appellant and his family members made continuous efforts to bring her back. Ultimately, after expiry of a period of three years, defendant-respondent came to her marital home on 10.03.1997. After staying for about three or four days with the family of plaintiff-appellant, she again went to her parental home. All this time she did not discharge her obligations as wife of the plaintiff-appellant and while returning to her parental home, she took away all jewelry and stridhan. A letter was sent by father of defendant-respondent to father of plaintiff-appellant that a daughter has been born to defendant-respondent on 01.03.1998 who has been named as Vibhushita @ Prachi. On receipt of this information, plaintiff-appellant was astonished as no child could be born out of the wedlock of plaintiff-appellant with defendant-respondent as there was no conjugal relationship between the two. However, considering the prestige and grace of the family and himself, he did not raise voice and kept quiet. Plaintiff-appellant, inspite of the aforesaid, requested defendant-respondent to improve her conduct but she failed. The family of plaintiff-appellant did not want to leave defendant-respondent as defendant-respondent was blessed with a girl child who is loved by all. Plaintiff-appellant and his family members were unaware of the truth and inspite of the humiliation faced by them at the behest of defendant-respondent, they kept quiet. Ultimately, as per the wishes of his family members, plaintiff-appellant met defendant-respondent and her family members again on 02.07.2004 to bring her back to her marital home but she refused. She again stated that she has wrongly been married to the plaintiff-appellant. On account of aforesaid conduct of defendant-respondent, plaintiff has suffered physical and mental cruelty at the hands of the defendant-respondent and hence the suit for divorce.

4. The suit for divorce filed by plaintiff-appellant was contest