Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 736 of 2021 Appellant :- Pooran Lal Vishwakarma Respondent :- Smt. Prabha Devi Counsel for Appellant :- Mahesh Kumar,Tapan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
The appellant husband is not present in the Court inspite of the directions issued by this Court. The respondent wife is present. No plausible explanation has been given by the learned counsel for the absence of the appellant husband.
It is, thus, clear that there are no chances of conciliation between the parties. We, therefore, proceed to hear the matter on merits.
The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 12.1.2017 whereby the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the husband/appellant herein has been rejected. Two issues were framed by the Family Court for decision on the petition for divorce. The issue no. 2 is relevant for our purpose, which reads as under:-
"okn fcUnq la0&2 bl vk’k; dk gS fd D;k izfrokfn;k ,d nq"pfj= efgyk gS ftlds dkj.k oknh dk izfrokfn;k ds lkFk jguk laEHko ugha gS\ The Family Court has recorded that in the petition for divorce, it was asserted by the appellant that the wife has illicit relationship and she had started living with her paramour and in order to harass the appellant, she had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 23.10.2012. The assertion in paragraph ‘8’ of the petition had been denied in the written statement and it was stated that there are four children born out of the wedlock, three daughters and one son. The husband is working in the Animal Husbandry Department and has a fixed source of income, whereas the wife has no source of income. As regards the issue no. ‘2’, the findings returned by the Family Court are that the appellant has tried to prove his claim of the illicit relationship of wife with another person based on some photograph. In the cross-examination, wife had explained that the person, who was stated to be her paramour, was actually a tenant in the house of the appellant for sometime, which was later sold. It is further recorded by the Family Court that apart from the photograph, which was proved to have been captured in a birthday celebration of the sister of D.W. 2, who had been produced in defence of wife, no other material had been brought on record to prove the bald assertion of the husband about the wife having illicit relationship.
It is informed by the learned counsel for the respondent that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., only Rs. 2,500/- is being paid to the wife towards monthly maintenance. Apart from the same, no maintenance is being provided for the children, who have been left on their own.
Be that as it may, having perused the rival submissions of the parties and the contentions of the appellant in the divorce petition, we find that no evidence much less cogent evidence had been brought by the husband to prove his allegations to seek the decree of divorce. As the appellant has not discharged his obligations to prove the contentions in the divorce petition, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Family Court.
The appeal seeking for setting aside of the judgement and order dated 12.1.2017, therefore, is found devoid of merits and hence, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.10.2021 Shalini 2 of 2