PRITI KUMARI Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises from judgment and decree dated 3.5.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj, dated 3.5.2010 in M.M. Case No. 95 of 2007. The application for divorce filed by the Respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called "the Act") has been allowed. The learned Family Judge held that the appellant was guilty of desertion for more than two years. She was of quarrelsome nature and did not perform the duties of a housewife declining to look after the respondent's mother suffering from cancer. The allegation for demands of dowry and consequent harassment had not been proved. The marriage had broken down irretrievably as the parties were living separately since long and were on litigating terms.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that the finding of desertion was erroneous. She was compelled to leave the matrimonial home because of the respondent's conduct in demands for dowry and cruelty apparent from institution of Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 105 of 2004 under Section 498 -A IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act coupled with Station Diary Entry No. 782 of 2004 dated 27.9.2004 for a different episode. She had never denied to look after the respondent's mother and never refused to perform her obligations as a housewife. She was compelled to file Maintenance Case No. 75 of 2004 also as the respondent was not looking after her and the minor son both from the marriage. Her eagerness for revival of matrimonial harmony is apparent from the compromise agreed to by her in the criminal prosecution facilitating grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent and his family members. Without prejudice to the above it was lastly submitted that the amount of permanent alimony granted was grossly inadequate.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. Under Section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act the appeal was to be preferred within a period of thirty days from 3.5.2010 after excluding the period spent in obtaining the certified copy. The appeal therefore ought to have been presented on or before 15.6.2010. It was filed on 21.6.2010 on the reopening date of the Court after the annual vacation, with defects which were removed and re -filed on 29.6.2010.