IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce cannot be granted on ground of irretrievable break down of marriage, particularly when such plea is raised by one party alone.

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Misra, J.—The present first appeal under section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1984’) has been filed by Krishna Murari Plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘Plaintiff’) challenging judgement dated 17.11.2015 and decree dated 27.11.2015, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Dehat in Suit No. 11 of 2009 (Krishna Murari Vs. Sangeeta) under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1955’) whereby suit filed by Plaintiff for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of adultery, which is recognized as a ground of divorce under section 13 (1) (i) of Act 1955 has been dismissed.

2. We have heard Mr. Udhay Bhan Singh, learned counsel for Plaintiff and Mr. Atul Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel representing Defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘Defendant’)

3. According to plaint allegations marriage of Plaintiff was solemnized with Defendant on 17.6.2005 at Hindupur in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage, Defendant came to her matrimonial home at village Nasirapur. It is alleged by Plaintiff that after some time, Defendant insisted that they should live in Bilhour. However Plaintiff resisted the desire of Defendant on the ground that he is the only son of his parents and father of Plaintiff has died long ago. As such, Mother of Plaintiff will be left alone at Naserpur. Therefore, it is not advisable to live in Bilhour. However, it is alleged by Plaintiff that after some time again pressure was exerted by Defendant to live at Bilhour. Ultimately, Plaintiff acceded to the insistence of defendant and started residing at Bilhour. It is further alleged by Plaintiff that on 28.9.2005, when he returned after closing his shop found of his residence locked. On inquiry, it was gathered that Defendant has gone to house of her Jija, namely, Mahesh Chand, who is also living in Bilhour. According to Plaintiff, he reached house of Mahesh Chand at arround 6:00 pm and found Defendant in compromising position with Mahesh. Plaintiff is alleged to have words with Defendant but she refused to pay any heed. After the aforesaid incident, Plaintiff is alleged to have pursuaded Defendant to abstain from visiting her Jija’s place but she refused. On complaint being made to father and brother of Defendant Sangeeta, they also did not pay any heed, but to the contrary supported her. They are also alleged to have threatened Plaintiff of his life. Relationship between parties became strained. On 20.4.2006, father of Defendant came to Bilhour, and stating that there is some function in village and Sangeeta shall return after one week. Accordingly, Sangeeta wife of Plaintiff went with her father on 20.4.2006 to her parental home. After one week, Plaintiff went to Hindupur to bring back Sangeeta but father and brother of Defendant refused to send her along with Plaintiff. It is also alleged that on 5.6.2006, when Plaintiff was at his shop, his friend Girish Chand informed that his wife has arrived at her Jija’s house, since yesterday. Plaintiff closed his shop and retuned to his home waiting for Defendant. However, as Defendant did not return up to 8:00 pm, Plaintiff went to the house of Jija of Defendant and there he saw his wife Sangeeta in compromising position with Mahesh Chand, her Jija. Inspite of aforesaid, wife of Mahesh i.e. Ranu and Mahesh abused Plaintiff, as such, Plaintiff returned to his home. Defendant lodged an F.I.R. against Plaintiff in which Plaintiff surrendered before Court on 20.7.2006 and enlarged on bail on 20.7.2006. It is also alleged that on 4.8.2006, Pappu, brother-in-law of Plaintiff and Mahesh Chand, Sadhu of Plaintiff are alleged to have assaulted Plaintiff and also took away Rs. 10,000/- from the person of Mahesh. Inspite of all attempts made by relatives of Plaintiff, to have a compromise, Defendant did not accede to the same. To the contrary, she initiated criminal proceedings against Plaintiff. As such, except