LAWS(ORI)-2013-8-36

DIBYA KISHORE PATEL Vs. TANOJ KUMARI PATEL

Decided On August 27, 2013
Dibya Kishore Patel Appellant
V/S
Tanoj Kumari Patel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th March, 1996 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Original Suit No.104 of 1995/Misc. Case No.56 of 1995.

(2.) THE appellant is the plaintiff filed the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereafter referred to as "the Act") for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The marriage between the parties solemnized on 4.4.1987 and the same is admitted. The parties are Hindu. After marriage, both the husband and wife lived together at the native place. Thereafter, husband returned to his working place in New Delhi. The wife subsequently joined him and they led a happy conjugal life till 15.6.1987. The wife returned to Rourkela to prosecute and complete her study. The husband joined I.I.T in New Delhi to prosecute his M.Tech Course during June, 1988. In November, 1988, the wife joined the husband in New Delhi. The husband insisted her to complete her M.Phil Course in New Delhi.

(3.) AFTER receiving notice, the wife filed her written statement traversing the allegations made by the husband and stated that the adverse attitude of the husband towards her had been reflected immediately after the marriage which resulted in a series of litigations and a G.R. case No.790 of 1990 was also pending for adjudication. Her father is a retired person. She has been facing much hardship to maintain herself and the child without any financial assistance from the husband. The suit was filed with an ulterior motive and she prayed for dismissal of the same. During pendency of the suit, the husband filed an application under Section 26 of the Act for custody of the child which was registered as Misc. Case No.56 of 1995. Accordingly, both the applications were heard together. In support of their respective pleadings, they adduced evidence by examining themselves as P.W.1 and D.W.1. The husband did not file any documentary evidence. However, the wife filed four letters which were marked as Exts.A to D.