IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Staying separate for more than a decade would not be construed to be an irretrievable break down of marriage.

JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2019 (decree signed on 6.1.2020) passed by Shri Peeyush Kumar, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No.142 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent has been dismissed.

3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status before the learned court below.

4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had preferred a suit under section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent (respondent herein also), in which inter alia it has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 4.12.2011 at Isri Bazar, Giridih. The petitioner at the time of his marriage was working as a Software Engineer in Bangalore whereas the respondent was a graduate. After marriage, the petitioner and the respondent started residing in No. 502 Vijay Mansion, First Main Pai Layout, Bangaloe from where they shifted to another accommodation in the month of June, 2013 where they last resided together. After a few months, the behaviour of the respondent towards the petitioner changed and the petitioner was mentally and physically tortured and the respondent also demanded to have unnatural sex with the petitioner. The respondent apart from calling derogatory names to the petitioner had also disrespected and humiliated the parents of the petitioner who resides at Jharkhand and the conduct of the respondent towards the petitioner continued till the respondent deserted the petitioner on 15.11.2013. In the month of June, 2012 during the occasion of Holi the respondent had left her matrimonial house along with all gold jewelleries given to her by the petitioner at the time of marriage and after two months she returned back sans the jewellery. After keeping the jewellery at her parents house she started demanding costly gold jewellery from the petitioner which was beyond the means of the petitioner. It has been stated that the respondent had left her matrimonial house on 13.12.2013 for her parents house on which date the petitioner suffered a fracture injury but despite repeated efforts the respondent neither enquired about the wellbeing of the petitioner nor did she come to Bangalore to look after the petitioner. The petitioner was, in the circumstances, constrained to send a legal notice to the respondent calling upon her to return to her matrimonial house. Instead of returning to Bangalore the respondent organized a Panchayat through Barnwal Yuvak Sangh which the petitioner was forced to attend on 11.3.2013. The Panchayat had thereafter given its verdict with direction to both the sides. The respondent and her family members later on forcibly got inserted a line to the effect that the petitioner side were found guilty. In terms of the conditions agreed upon by the parties, the petitioner had gone to Chas and brought back the respondent to her matrimonial house from where they shifted to another accommodation in the month of June, 2013. It has been stated that the respondent and her family members had tried to implicate the petitioner in false cases but their endeavour failed and the torture upon the petitioner continued relentlessly. It has further been stated that on 15.9.2013, the respondent had physically assaulted the petitioner and had also bitten him on the right hand for which he had to be given tetanus injection and other medicines. It has further been stated that the respondent had gleaned information from the petitioner’s phone without his knowledge and started calling his colleagues and had spoken ill about the character of the petitioner. On account of the respondent and her brothers entering the work