##PAGE1##

Reserved on 09.10.2026 Delivered on 26.10.2026 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Priti Sharma .....Appellant(s)

Versus Praveen Prakash Sharma .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Adeeb Anwar, Anuj Laloriya, Gaurav Tiwari, Pankaj Kumar Govil, Priyanka Singh, Rahil Anwar, Sanjay Chaturvedi, Santosh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) :

A.F.R.

Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J. (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Shri Pankaj Govil, Advocate appearing for the Appellant; and in spite of sufficient notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

2. The present First Appeal is preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, read with Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1890), against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Azamgarh in Case No. 44 of 2017 (Preeti Sharma Versus Praveen Prakash Sharma) under Section 25 of the Act, 1890.

3. The admitted facts, as also evident from the records, giving rise to the present appeal are that, the marriage between the appellant and the sole respondent was solemnized on 19.02.2007 at Village Mohalla Nuaon Tandiya, Post Dafee, Tehsil and Distt. Varanasi in accordance with Hindu rituals and rites and after the marriage the parties resided at Sector-16-C, Greater Noida, in a house which according to the respondent is owned by his mother and out of wedlock of the parties, two sons were born, that is, Yathartha Sharma (23.05.2011) and Aniket @ Samartha Sharma (02.06.2013).

4. However, it has been stated that on 03.04.2016, the respondent left the appellant at her parental house at Varanasi and took away the elder son, that is, Master Yathartha Sharma, with him and as such abandoned his wife and the younger son.

5. It also transpired that within a short period, the respondent filed a divorce petition being Case No. 246 of 2016 (Praveen Vs. Preeti) and after getting the notice, it has been submitted that the appellant and her family members tried their level best to reconcile; and even filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights; making every effort to bring the family back together.

6. However, the respondent was not willing to reconcile the differences, since he was avoiding the responsibility towards his wife and minor son; and even after the divorce petition was rejected and the suit for restitution was allowed on 15.12.2022, but the respondent did not take back his wife to her matrimonial home and as a matter of fact, it has been submitted, while placing reliance upon the identity card of Master Yathartha Sharma, that without there being a divorce between the parties, the respondent has entered into a marriage with one, Ms. Sumanlata Sharma which is not only in violation of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights but also, as a matter of fact, the said marriage is void in view of subsistence of the marriage between the parties.

7. The aforesaid fact has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant, to demonstrate that the respondent has no respect for law. It has further been submitted that vide the impugned judgment dated 23.04.2024, visitation rights were given to the appellant, but till date, the appellant, inspite of her best efforts, has not been permitted to meet her son.

8. It has further been submitted that the appellant had tried to meet her son at the school, and during the brief meeting, Master Yathartha Sharma informed her that he is not being treated well by the woman with whom the respondent has been living and she makes him run for daily chores and is not treating him with dignity or by way of providing a conducive environment; whereas he is staying at Gautam Budh Nagar while his father is working at Bengaluru. He also told that appellant that whenever his father-respondent comes during vacations, they regularly visit their ancestral home at Azamgarh and at tha