Recently, the Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging the dismissal of a divorce petition by the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. The appellant sought divorce on grounds of desertion and cruelty.
However, the court observed that, “Merely because the parties may have remained separated for reason of their separate jobs with one working at Jhansi and the other at Auraiya, the fact occurrence of desertion may never be sustained on the strength of such vocational/employment compulsion faced by the parties”.
Brief Facts:
In the present case, the appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, arises from a judgement dated February 10, 2011, passed by the principal judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, dismissing the divorce petition filed by the appellant. The appellant and respondent were married on May 12, 1999, and had been living separately since June 29, 2003. The appellant, working as a Loco Pilot, alleged that the respondent, a teacher, deserted him in September 2003. The appellant filed a restitution of conjugal rights case in 2003, followed by a divorce suit in 2007 on grounds of desertion and cruelty.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent deserted him in September 2003. He also claimed cruelty based on criminal complaints filed against him by the respondent under various sections of the IPC, including Section 498A. The appellant sought divorce on these grounds.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent disputed the claims of desertion and presented documentary evidence to show she was hospitalized during the time in question and that the appellant had visited her. The counsel also led evidence suggesting that the appellant attempted to remarry during the subsistence of their marriage and made demands for dowry.
Observation of the Court:
The court observed that the appellant failed to prove the allegation of desertion, as the evidence indicated the respondent was ill and the appellant had visited her in the hospital. The court also noted that the respondent’s school was located near the appellant’s ancestral home, undermining the claim of willful desertion. The court noted that “Merely because the parties may have remained separated for reason of their separate jobs with one working at Jhansi and the other at Auraiya, the fact occurrence of desertion may never be sustained on the strength of such vocational/employment compulsion faced by the parties”. On the issue of cruelty, the court found that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the criminal complaints filed by the respondent were false, the court states “As to cruelty, no evidence appears to have been led to establish that the institution of the criminal case by the respondent, either in the year 2004 alleging demand of dowry under Section 498A, 323, 109 IPC or in the year 2006 alleging other offence under Section 452, 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC was false or that no such occurrence had taken place. Both cases are disclosed to be pending”. Additionally, the court considered evidence that the appellant attempted to remarry during the subsistence of his first marriage.
The court agreed with the findings of the Family Court and dismissed the appeal, citing lack of merit.
Case Title: Arvind Singh Sengar vs. Prabha Singh
Citation: FIRST APPEAL No. - 141 of 2014
Order Date: 12.09.2024
Coram: Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh, Justice Donadi Ramesh
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Vivek Prasad Mathur
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Manvendra N.Singh
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :