critical analysis of bhola Kumar Vs seems Devi case 2015 Patna high court case
Answers
Answer:
Bhola Kumar vs Seema Devi @ Dolly on 17 April, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.541 of 2012
===========================================================
Bhola Kumar S/O Sri Jai Prakash Sah R/O Mohalla - Gayatri Nagar, Police Station Jamalpur, District - Munger .... .... Appellant/s Versus Seema Devi @ Dolly W/O Bhola Kumar R/O Mohalla - Gayatri Nagar, Police Station-Jamalpur, District - Munger, At Present D/O Sri Bhuneshwar Sah, Resident Of Village And P.O. Simpur, P.S. Kharagpur, District - Munger .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Birendra Singh Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary For the Respondent/s :
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH) Date: 17-04-2015 This is an appeal, under Section 15 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the judgment and decree, dated 7th July, 2012, passed by learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Munger, in Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 01 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Judge has dismissed the suit on contest, the suit having arisen out of matrimonial dispute seeking, under Section 3(1)(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a decree of divorce. The appellant- husband herein was the petitioner before the Court below.
2. The matter has been placed for hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and is being disposed of, finally, at this stage itself.
3. From the impugned judgment and decree, it Patna High Court MA No.541 of 2012 P2/10 would appear that the appellant and respondent were married as per Hindu rites and customs on 12.05.2003. In his petition, seeking divorce under Section 3(1)(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the applicant alleged that the behaviour of respondent-wife, from the very first day of their marriage, had been quite abnormal and despite the appellant's best efforts, the respondent did not mend her ways. He alleged that he suspected that the respondent had been having and maintaining illicit relationship with many persons and despite the fact that the appellant had no sexual contact with the respondent since March, 2007, their last cohabitation being on 16.02.2007, he learnt that respondent wife was carrying pregnancy of 5 to 6 months. It further transpires from the order under appeal that the appellant further alleged that the respondent had earlier refused to come back to matrimonial home and, thus, deserted the petitioner.
4. It would further appear, from the order under appeal, that the respondent, while contesting the suit, denied the allegation of cruelty as well as her illicit relationship with any person and asserted that non-fulfillment of the demand for dowry, made by the husband-appellant and his near relatives, was the reason behind institution of the matrimonial suit. She denied that she had illicit relationship with any person.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings, following three issues were framed by the learned Court below:- Patna High Court MA No.541 of 2012 P3/10 I. "Whether the respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty after marriage? II. Whether the respondent is living in adultery?