IMPORTANT POINT
Divorce – Father is duty bound to maintain his child irrespective of income of mother,

JUDGMENT

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.—

Prayer:

The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against order/judgment dated 11.05.2018 and decree dated 23.05.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, A/C Latehar in Original Suit No. 13 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the learned court has allowed the suit which has been preferred by the husband/respondent for dissolution of marriage.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the original suit, needs to be referred herein reads, which reads as under:

3. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.11.2007 according to the Hindu rituals and after performance of the marriage, the appellant-wife came to her marriage house.

4. The marriage between the parties was consummated and during consummation of marriage, parties were blessed with two daughters, the eldest born in the 2008 and the youngest born in the year 2013. It is stated that the parties lived as husband and wife till September, 2012 either in village Rakhwali, P.S. Fariha, District-Firojabad, U.P. or have resided lastly at railway quarter no. 314 “c” at first floor, Barwadih, District- Latehar.

5. The respondent-husband is a Loco Pilot (Electric) and later on promoted to the post of Chief Loco Inspector, Traction and posted at ECR, Barwadih under Divisional Manager, Dhanbad. Whereas after marriage, the appellant-wife got teachers training from April, 2008 to September, 2008 and after successful completion of the training she joined the Govt. job as Assistant teacher in Uchch Prathmik Vidyalaya at village Gadi, Chhatrapati (Panchawan), P.O. Pachwan, P.S. Narki, District-Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh.

6. It is case of the respondent-husband before the Family Court that he is the only son of his parents and he hardly gets leave to visit his native place, but the appellant-wife never cared to look after his parents, nor interested to know about them although the place of posting of the respondent is within 10 km from the parental house of the respondent-husband.

7. It is further case of the respondent-husband that the appellant-wife, after return from Barwadih on 23.10.2012, completely changed herself and was not intending even to talk with him and refused to live with him in future as wife without showing any reason.

8. It has further been stated that though the respondent-husband, on 19.01.2013 went to the parental house of his wife for her Bidayee, but she refused to return to her in-laws house and also refused to share bed with him, which caused utter humiliation and cruelty to the respondent-husband resulting into a deserted life.

9. On seeing the conduct of the appellant-wife, the respondent-husband returned on the same day. Again on 14.04.2013, the respondent-husband [the petitioner in the suit] along with his father and near relatives went to the parental house of the appellant-wife for her Bidayee and to know the reasons for refusal, but the appellant-wife refused without any reason and in spite of the humble approach to convince her, the sincere effort went in vain. The appellant-wife and her parents conceded that it is refusal forever and now there cannot be any marital life between them.

10. It is stated that though both were living separately since more than two years and seeing the intention of the appellant-wife the respondent-husband ultimately sent a legal notice dated 13.01.2016 either to restore the relation or dissolve the marriage.

11. But the appellant-wife instead of showing to restore the relation send reply dated 29.01.2016 and claimed huge amount of gold and silver which allegedly was given at the time of Supurdagi to her as dowry and stridhan.

12. The said reply was admitted to be refusal on behalf of the appellant-wife. She had also threatened to send a copy of the notice to the D.R.M, East Central Railway. The said conduct of the appellant-wife caused mental cruelty and distress. In spite of the said reply