JUDGMENT :

Arindam Sinha, J.

1. The first appeal stands preferred by aggrieved husband in the marriage. The Family Court on judgment dated 24th January, 2025 refused to accept appellant's petition for dissolution of the marriage. In other words, it stood dismissed. Mr. Saurabh Sachan, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and Mr. Shyam Bahadur, learned advocate, for respondent-wife.

2. We had required the registry to make English translation of impugned judgment as well as judgment dated 22nd September, 2017, earlier passed by a different learned Judge of the Family Court, rejecting the petition of respondent-wife claiming interim maintenance under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We have perused both judgments. We have also heard learned advocates for the parties.

3. It appears from impugned judgment, the Family Court disbelieved appellant's case because he was found to have separated from respondent on 25th December 2015, when she was two months pregnant. Said Court found appellant had admitted that neither did he know for how many days his daughter was in intensive care unit (ICU) after birth nor what disease she was suffering from. He never attende