SUNITA MISHRA Vs. PRASHANT MISHRA
LAWS(CHH)-2005-7-3
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on July 08,2005

SUNITA MISHRA Appellant
VERSUS
PRASHANT MISHRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 61-A/2003 relating to Prashant Mishra v. Smt. Sunita Mishra, by Vth Additional District Judge, Durg (C.G.) vide which a decree for judicial separation has been granted in favour of the plaintiff.
(2.) Parties are Hindus. Marriage was solemnized between the parties on 4.2.1999 at Dalli Rajhara, Tah, Balod, Dist. Durg, according to Hindu rites. Appellant lived with her husband/respondent till 20.2.1999 and thereafter respondent left India for States where he is employed. Appellant after staying for some time in her matrimonial house, left for her parental house. She lived in her matrimonial house along with her in-laws from 18.3.1999 to 25.4.1999 and from 5.5.1999 to 24.5.1999 and thereafter she was living in her parental house. On 30.3.2000 respondent returned back from States. During the above period father of the appellant wrote some letters to parents of the respondent alleging false imputations. After reading those letters respondent came to know about the matter and tried to contact the appellant, but the parents of the appellant did not allow him to talk with appellant. Therefore, in the second week of April 2000 respondent approached the family conciliation centre and with the aid of family conciliation centre, compromise took place between the parties on 20.4.2004. Thereafter, appellant accompanied with respondent went to Bombay to obtain visa, stayed there and after taking visa came back to Durg. From the date of marriage till 2.5.2000 appellant did not allow herself to discharge her matrimonial obligations towards the respondent and whenever respondent urged for intercourse she denied saying that she will become unpious and if forced, she will commit suicide. On 3.5.2000 when she was asked to go to States along with respondent, she denied and returned back her Bethrowal ring. Therefore, on the ground of cruelty petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, "the Act) for decree of divorce has been filed by the respondent.
(3.) On the other hand, appellant in her reply stated.that on the demand of dowry she was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws. Respondent after marriage did nto make any effort to take her to State. Neither he got his passport prepared nor obtained any visa. She being a Hindu woman was ashamed to initiate for physical relationship and it was for the respondent to initiate for cohabitation, but respondent never initiated and tried to maintained physical relation with her. She is still ready to go to States along with respondent, but despite knowing the fact that appellant has passport and visa he did not take her to States.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.