07.

05.04.2021

BP

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.

This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984

has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated

22.02.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda in

C.P. No.11 of 2017 rejecting the application filed by the appellant

for dissolution of marriage with the respondent.

3.

The learned Judge, Family Court has framed as many as

three issues in respect of the matrimonial dispute between the

parties, which are as follows:

i) Whether the marriage between the parties has been

solemnized on 21.03.2007?

ii) Whether the respondent was torturing her husband and

for that he has gone for conciliation towards dissolution of

marriage?

iii) Whether the appellant is entitled to decree of divorce?

The appellant in order to prove his case has examined two

witnesses including himself as P.W.1 whereas the respondent

examined four witnesses including herself as R.W.1. The appellant

has also exhibited five documents and the respondent has

exhibited four documents.

4.

The learned Judge, Family Court after hearing learned

counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record,

recoded a finding that the appellant has failed to convince the

court either establishing his plea of torture by the respondent or in

proving his ‘Talaq’ including its means and response by the

respondent in that regard. The appellant also failed to prove the

MATA NO.64 OF 2019

2

acknowledgement of letter by the respondent to the alleged

‘Talaq’. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the learned Judge,

Family Court by the impugned order dismissed the Civil

Proceeding, which is under challenge in the present appeal.

5.

The above findings are recorded on the basis of the

respective pleadings of the parties which are as follows:

The marriage between the appellant and the respondent

was solemnized on 21.03.2007 under Mohammedan law by

observing all formalities of a valid ‘nikah’. After ‘nikah’ the

respondent stayed in the paternal house of the appellant. The

appellant is serving in Indian Army but due to accommodation

problem he did not take the respondent with him. The appellant

used to come to his home frequently and was also taking her care.

After one month of marriage the respondent’s parent wanted to

take the respondent to their home in absence of the appellant.

Thereafter the respondent did not return to the house of the

appellant despite repeated request of the appellant. On the

intervention of gentlemen the respondent joined to the company of

the appellant and stayed at the service place of the appellant. Out

of their wedlock a male child was born. While the respondent was

with the appellant at his service place, the parents of the

respondent had visited the respondent and her son. During the

stay of the parents of the respondent, she was instigated by her

parents as a result of which the respondent abused the appellant,

ill treated him and mentally tortured him and also she did not agree

to relationship with the appellant. Thereafter the father-in-law of

the appellant took the respondent to his home. The appellant tried

3

to restitute the conjugal life but failed. It is stated that though the

appellant is ready and willing to lead conjugal life with the

respondent but she without any cause has withdrawn herself from

the society of the appellant. The appellant had tried to reconcile

the matter through mediators but the respondent did not take any

step for which the reconciliation failed. On 05.08.2009 the

appellant pronounced ‘Talaq’ and communicated it in writing to the

respondent, which was acknowledged by the respondent.

Thereafter he also communicated ‘Talaq’ twice to her. So the

pronouncement of ‘Tala