^z- HIGH COUItT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BUASPUR DIVISIOK BENCH: HOITBLB SHRI T. P. 8HAKMA & APPBLLAMT (AppUcant) HON'BLB SHRI R.L. JHAMWAR. JJ. FI»STAPPEALIMt No. S6/20(» Barat Mohaa Uraon Son of Natthuram Uraon, Caste Uraou, aged about 33 years, Resident of Vitls^e Laindand, Post To^e, Policc Station and Tahsil lailunga, DistErct Ra^arh. Presentty residing at Tamnar Asha S.T.D. P.C.O. Beside af F'ataayak Restauraat, TamTiar, tahsil Ghai^hoda, District Raigarh (CG) o 3 RBSPONDBHT (Non-AppUcaat) Versus Snit Sarojani Uraon wife of Barat Mohaa, Caste Uraon, aged about 30 years, Resident of vfllage Tamnar, House of Natfhuram Uraon, bchind of house of Pratnod Sao, Tanmar, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Raigarh (CG) First Appeal under Section 19 (11 ofthe FamUy Cioarts Act, 1984 Prese^t: Shri A.N. Bhakta, counsel for fhe appellaat. Shri. Vunlesh Bajpai, coiinsel for fhe respondent ORAL - JUDGMBNT (Passed on 14* Jvme, 2010) The foUowiug judgment of the Court was passed by T. P. Sharma, J. *, 1. In this appeal fhe appellant has chatlenged thc judgment aad decrep dated 24.3.2009, passed by the Prwdpal Judge, FamUy Court, Raigarh (CG) in Ciyfl Suit No.50-A/2007, whereby, -e. .)• l:a •ii --w?'-^. s ^ leamed Judge of fhe Panufy Coiirt has dismMscd tfae suit of thc appeUaat filed for divorce under Section 13 offhe Hiadu Marri^e Act. 2. The judgment and decree 1s chaUei^ed on fhc grouad that the Court below has not considered fhe eviden.ee of the appeUant, which is suf&cient for drawiug au inference that ttie respondcnt was pregnant at the time of marriage with fhe appeUaut and thereby committed iUegality. 3. As per pleadiags brief case is that fhe parties are legaUy wedded and solemiuzed their inarriage on 21.5.2002. As per pleadir^s of the appeUant, fhe appellaat was not havmg aay access to fhe respondeut and withia 5 days of marriage, the respondent intuaated fhe appellant fhat she was pregnaat The respondent has cominitted cruelty upon flie appdlaat oa the aforesaid grounds, fherefore, a petition for divoice was ffled by fhe appeUant. 4. The respondent has denied the aUcgattons raised ia the petition and specificaUy allcged that she conccived as a result of physical relations with fhe appeUaat and ddivered the cluld through this pregnaacy. D.N.A. test has also been conducted, which has supported the patemily ofthe child. 5. On fhebasis ofavennents ofthe parties, Court has fi-amed issues aad after providing opportuiuly of hemin^;, Court has dismissed fhe petition for dissolution of manraage by tiie uapugned judgment and decree, 6, We have heard Shn A.N. Bhakta, leamed couaael for the appeUant aad Shri Vimlesh Bajpal, learaed counsel for the respondeut aad perused the nnpugaed judgment and decree. ^^ 7. Leamed counsel for the appeUant vehemently ai^ued that wifhin 5 days of the laaxna^e without aay physical relations, the respondent intimated the appeUant that she has concdved and is pregnant. This fact is sufficient for drawing an inference fhat at fhe tim.e ofmamE^e, respondent was pregnaut, fherefore, on fhis ground alone, the appeUant is entifled for dissolutton ofmarriage. 3. 3 8. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the petitiou aad submits fhat the appeUant himself has deposed fhat within 5 days of marriage, his wife tias conceived, fherefore, he doubted relating to pregaancy aud even after D.N.A. test, fhe appellant is doubting fhe patemity of fhe cluld. Tbia shows fhat fhe respondent conceived as a result of physical relations with the appeUant, but the appeUant is not agree to accept fhe pregaancy of the respondent and Court below has rightly dismissed (he petition for dissolution of marriage in accordauce with law. 9. As regards pregnancy aad groitad for dissolution of raarriage, fhe appeUant Imaself has deposed that his wife has conceived wifhin 5 days of their marriage and he is not in agreement wifh such pregnancy. He bas also deposed fhat D.N.A. test was conducted, wlu.ch has proved fhe paterulty offhe chfld, but he is not agree with the D.N.A. test. This is ttre petition for dissolution ofinarriage by the appeBaut/husband ou the ground ofpregnaucy before Baarriage offhe appeBaat witti the respoudent. The burdeu of proof of such fect was on tfae appellant, but by adduciag his evidence, appeBant has utterty failed to discharge tus burden. < ^ «^«'t" ^s 10. On the ofher haad. evidence of appcMaat te sufficient to prove fhe fact fhat respondent was preg^uant fhrough the appeBaat after mama^e aad the respondent has delivered fhe child fhrough this pregnancy. 11. ABer appreciating the evidence, Court below has r^htly dismissed the petition for dissolution of raarri^e by decree of divorce. On close scrutmy of the evidence, we do not find aiiy iUegaUly or iafirmity ia the judgment aad dccree impugBed warrautuug interference by this Court. 12. Consequenfly, the appeal being devoid ofmerits te liable to be and is hereby disDassed. 13. Parties shatl bear fheir own cost. Advocates' fee as per schedule. '^-yyyvf^ 14. Decree be drawn accordiagly. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhaiiwar ie