- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th March, 2017 passed in Original Matrimonial Title Suit No. 130 of 2008 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi whereunder the matrimonial suit instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner/husband/appellant herein for a decree of divorce under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 has been dismissed on contest, with a cost of Rs. 2000/-.The consequent decree is dated 03.04.2017. As per case of the petitioner/appellant, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25th October, 2001 at St. Mary Cathedral Church, Ranchi according to Christian rites and customs. The petitioner alleged that his wife did not give up her habit of leaving the matrimonial house without consent, despite request and insistence. They did not mix up with each other after November, 2002. She voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 30.01.2003. She came back on 10.04.2003 and abused the petitioner in dirty language and demanded money for herself and, thereafter, left the house on the same day. On 7th May, 2003, she came to her matrimonial house to attend Shradh karm of her mother-in-law and started vomiting thereafter. Though she did not agree for medical checkup, on some pretext or other, she was taken to doctor for medical checkup where it was found that she was carrying pregnancy of 65 days. Petitioner denied the baby born to the respondent. Ultra sound report also confirmed that she was pregnant. Medical reports were reportedly attached to the petition but not adduced as evidence. The matter was raised before the Panchayat who advised the petitioner to go to the authority of Church. He submitted a complaint before the Church. However, thereafter approached the court for decree of divorce on these grounds, asserting that the cause of action arose on 15th November, 2002.
(3.) The respondent-wife, in her written statement, denied the allegations as being false, frivolous and fictitious. The suit is misconceived and not maintainable and suffers from non-joinder and misjoinder of the party. Parawise reply to the complaint was also furnished where she also alleged that she was forced by the petitioner to leave the matrimonial house on non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 2.5 lacs. The petitioner used to come in drunken condition late at night. According to her, she had gone to doctor with her sister and not with the Bhabhi. A daughter Sephali was born out of the wedlock of the parties. At para 35, she also stated that if any further dispute arose with respect to the daughter she and her daughter should be sent for DNA test which will make the situation clear. She alleged that the petitioner wanted to get rid of the respondent because of the reasons best known to him. Moreover, due to nonfulfillment of demand of dowry on behalf of her poor family, those insinuations have been made.;