6. ^ FjF-st AsBegl (M) No,24 nf 2007 Hon'bte A*r.R.L.J'nes.nwa''. JJ. f ^ £ffS^Hap.3 •V.Ejkesh j??ic.rt ^iDc^riVO. ^*-/o SicanT Khomnath PJoa^iya Ao.ed - 34 years. Q.No.b - B, Street No.-4. Scctor' " ^. BhiloL Di^tric" ~ Duro / ((" fi ' .t7. S.ETit^/QishQlL Adc^d ~ 30 y^$rs. Vi/l'f's of Mukesh Kurnar Pipariya C/o Lcv Kush UeshmuKn. Viilage - Sirejhar, i-.j.-1 nanflL buna fC.6'} rv;s^'^'?-ii,--"r (Aniora). QisTncT - fFIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTEON 19 OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACJ ^5 .uE-d -fa^i' Jf .--^* ^tfrrf-fcl^* t^? •s-*^' ^•i -^ ^^rf< s ^-^ t ^KH •^w / v ^^- 'u'; f-lia^M^ !.yoti i'r'esenT . AA.^.i%Q3kui^i£ir^uotQ- cc'iinssi for ths fXDQsllcifit- ,^ai .^ -<~n^l l.«<..i^. ^. .-.^. . Ut, ^.^.^,.—~,( T^., s. . S.—~>^^, w^,<». . Mr-.Praveen Dhurandhor, counsel tor the responctent. •tf-tjifti-r 12th i ,2 Thft ludQSTlsnT o'f ths Court ws$ dsllvsr^d by ^.P.^h^riTiQ* ^J^" 1. Thi^ fi'?l3t Q.Q^S.CS.I undsr 5sctio?fl'i9 fl^ c'f ths F^^iiv Courts .Act. 1^84- fin sho^t <tha -Act. 19S4'^ is dir©cts-da.Qoinst ths iuci<3iiraent dnd QSCFSB . ^ „ ^ —. ^ ^^, .-..- - „ ^ .—„ ^^ ...- .^ - -. . .- ^-. ..^.. ^f dis^issss! o'f "t4^s D8£titiof3 for dissoiution o"f ^nesrriQQ®by QQ.cys.^ of ^,.-.,-,,.^.1^ I~, -^-^.—.~,—•<«.., ....; .r— . .^.^ . ». ^ —^^. —-^„ , divorcg do.ted 15.3.200T scssed bv th®Sscond Additi!nr>nl Prl?ic]Dcil ^>-<—-,—». —^....-. T^^—-.*— ..«, ,..«..—. .....^.^ Judge, Fomiiy Couft, Durg, in Case No.48A/2007. '2.. -,TudQ^€.nt -^ -dscrsc cir's c ^f' ^ '"^"* " *^^ i.|j%n<3$d on the around th'Qt tlie Court bslow HQS r-ot eorasicjg.rsd th© Drovsd osss of y. ^. r —— —-—.— - t CQ'^'y^i't'ts.d bv ths "a3DQnds!^.t ond th^re'bv co?"iiRitt€tc' il!©&io!ity - ^, ... ...—~^,~...-,-....-—.-^.,..«..—-^,^-.;..,.. . . --. ...—^-....^. crueiT^ 1 3. Br'isf facts leadinq to filin" of this aoDeo! as psr oleadinQS of the pcrties are +ha+ the cppeiSimt and the resporsdent are !ega!!y wedded spouse. Marriage was soiemnized on 9.7.2000. According to the case of the appellant, the respondent was !iv'"9 "'i+h him ti!! 7.3.2001 and discharged her n'etr'imonic! obligation, but all of a sudden on 7.3.2001 she left the house of the appeHcLnt and stayed in her parenta! house tili 22.7.2003. She again came back to her "'atr'imonia! house where she resided ti!l 2005, but since 2003 to 2005, she refused to cohabit with the appeHant and failed to discharge her nna+rimonial obligation. She was examined by the doctors so meiny times at the instance of the appslleint. She executed son"e docuwent that she has w'lifully left tiie house of the appellant. F'nally, the petition for dissolution of n'ar'rlage by decree of divorce wcss filed on behnlf of the appe!lant. 4- The respondent has denied the ailegation and specifically al!eged that she hcis neyer refused for dischor^s of mQtrimonJa! obligotion Gnd she has not comn*.itted ony physlcal or menta! cruelt" upon the nppellant. 5. On the basis of averirerits of the par'ties, issues wer'e framed nnd afte?' affor'ding an oppor'tunity of hearing to 't+ie parties, learned Second Additiona! Principal Judge, Farnily Cour't, &urg has dismissed t^ie Detltion for dissoiutioin of r"csr'riaiQe bv decree of d!vorce. ,6. We haye hssr<i- iecr'ned coutise! for ths parties eyd pe^used the -•^^s'"" :. " ' » Judgment and decree impugned fflid record of the Fam'iy Court. 7. Leamed counsel for the qspeliant submlts that wi1+>out there being a"y cause. 'the r'espondent has left the house of the appellant on 7.3.2001 and stayed In her pcrenta! houss ti!l 22.7-2003. .Again she came back to her matrimonia! house, but failed to discharge her matr'imonia! obligation. She refused for cohabitation which is amount to mental cruelty. Learned counsel fur+her submits thdt the respondent herself has admitted in para-12 of her cfoss-exan'.ino.tion (^ ^ that since 7.3.2001 to til! today there was no relation of husband and wife betwesn her and the appeliant which is sufficier't for drawing inference that the respondent has committ'ed mental cruelty upon the appetlant. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the pe+ition a"d submits that the appelldnt is the person who has coinmitted cruelt/ cnd torture upon the respondent- The respondent was residing with the appe!la"t since 2003 to 2005 and the appeHcsnt has conipelled her for medical examination. 9. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, we haye sxcrfinsd the pleadings ond evidence adduced on beha!f of the appellcnt. -According to the pleading of the appeNant, the respondent was residing with him as wife till 7.3.2001 and tiiereafter she left his house and again she came back on 22.7.2003, Since 22.7.200-3 to 2005, the appellant has pr-oduced the respondent before different doctors for her- medical e.xa'r'ination. Accord'mg to the plead!n9, the respondsnt is not in a pos'tion to conceive and give birth to the chHd. The respondent herself hcs executed document that she is wi!!fuily residing separately from her husband. TTie qspellant has axaniined himseif cnd supported the pleadings. lO.PIeadings ond eyidence adduced on behalf of the appei'l^irt' are sufficient for drawing mference that since 22.7.2003 to till 2005, tiie respondent was residing with him ns wife and according to his statement, she has never consentfed for cohabitation, but -riie . nppe!!a"t has compe!ted her for medica! examiriation to proye that she is notin a position to conceiye and gi"e birth to the child. These facts are sufficient for proying physical and menta! cruelty on beholf of the appellant. not on behalf of the respondent. }/- fc < 11. -After appreciatlng the eyidence ayaitable on record, the Second Additiona! Pr'incipa! Judge, Family Court, &urg has dismissed the petition for dissolution of mwrio.ge by decree of diyorce. 12-Taking into consideration the facts and circumstanccs of the case, we are of the considered yiew that the Second .Additional Principal Judge, Famiiy Court, burg has not committed any illegality or infiriT'ity in dismissing the petition for dissolut'on of mar-riage by decree of diyorce. We do not find any substance in this appeal. The ippeal is liab!e to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Adyocate fee as Qer sche< Decree bs drctwn UG Qccordi^Glv. Sd/- T,P. Sharma Judge SdA R.L. Jhanwar Judge :—! 1