CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH)

Date : 17-01-2025 The present appeal has been filed under Section

19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 impugning the judgment dated 03.10.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna in Matrimonial Case No. 338 of 2019, whereby the petition, filed by the appellant-wife to nullify the marriage with the respondent-husband solemnized on 23.08.2018, has been dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant-wife as per the petition filed before the Family Court is that the appellant-

wife and respondent-husband both are divorcee. The appellant-wife was earlier married with one Abhishek Kumar but due to cruel attitude of her husband, the appellant-wife took divorce from Abhishek Kumar on mutual consent on 11.08.2015 in Matrimonial Case No. 351 of 2012. The respondent-husband had also married with one Sweta Kumari but their marriage also could not succeed and they part-ways on 09.12.2015 by means of decree of divorce by the Family Court, Jehanabad in Divorce Case No. 30 of 2014. The marriage of the appellant-wife with the respondent-husband was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals on 23.08.2018 in presence of relatives and well wishers of both sides. Before marriage, the respondent-husband projected himself as a Journalist working as Bureau Chief in 24 Channel but after marriage, the appellant-wife came to know that respondent-husband was unemployed. The respondent-husband, after passing some days, started brutally assaulting the appellant-wife. During living period with the respondent-husband, the appellant-wife found that respondent-husband is much cruel and of eccentric mind. The appellant-wife also came to know that after divorce with his ex-wife-Sweta Sinha, he had married again with one Lovely Sinha, daughter of Rakesh Sinha and this fact was kept concealed from the appellant-wife before marrying with her. The appellant-wife also found that respondent-husband is suffering from chronic Tuberculosis since 2015 but this fact was also concealed from the respondent-husband at the time of marriage. It is further averred that marriage with the appellant-wife could not be consummated due to inability of the respondent-husband.

3. After filing of the present suit, summons/notices were issued by the Court to the respondent-husband, but he did not appear. Hence, learned Principal Judge, Family Court decided to proceed ex-parte.

4. In order to prove her case, the appellant has adduced oral as well as documentary evidence during the course of the proceedings. During trial, the appellant-wife has produced and examined two witnesses namely Kanchan Prabha (P.W. 1), appellant-wife herself and Kamal Kishore Lalit (P.W. 2) before the Family Court in support of her averment made in the petition. The appellant-wife has also produced the documentary evidences i.e. Informatory Petition No. 3737 of 2016 (Ext-1), Medical Prescription of respondent-husband(Ext- 2), Advertisement published by Editor Manav Sewa Adhikar (Ext-3), Marriage receipt issued by Shiv Mandir, B.M.P, Patna (Ext-4), Joint Photographs of appellant-wife and respondent-husband (Ext-5).

5. This Court had issued notice to the respondent-

husband and notices were validly served to the respondent-husband but the respondent-husband choose not to appear before this Court to contest his case. The records of the learned Court below also suggests that respondent-husband had not appeared in spite of valid service of notice and hence the case was decided ex-

parte against respondent-husband.

6. In view of the pleadings and the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant as well as the evidences brought on record, the main points for determination in this appeal are as follows:-

(i) Whether the appellant is entitled to the relief sought for in her appeal.

(ii) Whether the impugned judgment of Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna is just, proper and sustainable in the eyes of law.

7. Both the above points are taken together for