IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MA No.139 of 2010
AKHILESHWAR BHARTI, SON OF SHRI DEEP NARAYAN
BHARTI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SAMAHUTA ( MATHIAN),
P.O. KUSHI, P.S. KACHWA ( KARAKAT, DISTRICT- ROHTAS AT
SASARAM............................................. APPELLANT
Versus
RAM SAWARI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF RAMESHWAR GIRI WIFE
OF AKHILESHWAR BHARTI, R/O VILLAGE- MILKI, P.O.
KHUTAHA, P.S. IMADPUR ( TARARI), DISTRICT- BHOJPUR AT
PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE- HASAN BAZAR ( IN THE
HOUSE OF KASHI SETH NEAR STATE BANK OF INDIA), P.O.-
HASAN BAZAR, DIST- BHOJPUR......... RESPONDENT
FOR THE APPELLANT :- MR. MAHESH NARAYAN PARBAT,
MR. VED PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA &
MR. SANJAY KR. JHA, ADVOCATES
FOR THE RESPONDENT:- MR. MAHESH PRASAD NO.2,
MR. REVTI KANT RAMAN &
MR. GOPAL SHARAN, ADVOCATES
-----------
9 28-1-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondent.
By the judgment and order under appeal dated 11th
December, 2009 the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Rohtas at Sasaram has dismissed appellant’s Matrimonial Suit
bearing no. 102 of 2006 and has refused to dissolve the
marriage by grant of decree of divorce under section 13 of the
Hindu Marriage Act,1955.
The material issues for the purpose of divorce were
issue nos.3 and 4 dealing with the allegations of illicit relation
of respondent with other person who was not made a party as
2
per Patna High Court Rules and cruelty by the respondent
against the appellant.
The discussion made by the learned Principal Judge
with regard to these issues discloses that the appellant was the
sole witness from his side and the court found that he failed to
prove the allegations of adultery as well as that of cruelty.
The respondent has filed written statement and alleged
demand of dowry and cruelty to her and she examined herself
as well as two other witnesses in support of her case. It has
come on record that appellant had alleged illicit relation of the
respondent with a person who as per evidence of the
respondent, was her uncle and the Court found the allegation
to be without any evidence. It has also come on record that
out of the wed-lock a daughter was born to the parties in
1993. From submissions advanced at bar, it is clear that the
daughter was living with her mother and she arranged for her
marriage but due to unfortunate accident she died in the year
2010.
After carefully going through the material, we do
not find any such evidence or circumstances which may
persuade us to reverse the findings given by the Family Court.
3
The acts of torture were allegedly directed also against the
parents of the appellant but he did not examine them as
witnesses nor anyone-else has come to support his evidence.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find
no good ground to entertain this appeal. It is, accordingly
dismissed at the stage of Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
If arrears of maintenance ordered in favour of the
respondents have not been paid then she would be at liberty to
pursue execution proceeding and the court concerned is
directed to take effective steps to ensure that maintenance
amount is regularly paid to the respondent in accordance with
law.
( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)
Naresh