1
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
Assam Schedule VII, Form No.132.
HIGH COURT FORM NO. (J) 2.
HEADING OF JUDGMENT IN ORIGINAL SUIT/CASE
District:- Karimganj.
In the Court of District Judge, Karimganj
Present:- Shri K. Choudhury, LL.M., District Judge, Karimganj.
Today, Friday, the 28th day of November, 2014
Title Suit (Matrimonial) NO. 59 OF 2011
1. Shri Milon Chattterjee Plaintiff/Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Smti. Amrita Chatterjee (Mishra) Defendant/Respondent
This suit/case coming on for final hearing on 13/11/2014 in presence of:
1. Mr. D. D. Choudhury Advocate for Petitioner/Plaintiff
1. Sri S.K Paul Advocate for Respondent/defendant
And having stood for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following Judgment:-
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner with a prayer for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent along with alternative prayer for a decree of judicial separation of the petitioner with the respondent under Section 10 of the Act mainly on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Contd..P/2 2
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
1. Petitioner’s case in brief is that his marriage with the respondent was a arranged one and solemnized on 21st May 2003 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at the paternal house of the respondent at village West Krishnanagar under Ratabari PS of the District of Karimganj. House of the petitioner situated at village East Krishnanagar. Both the above villages are neighbouring villages. The petitioner is an employee of the Assam Regiment; whereas the respondent is an employee of State Government and serving in the post of office Assistant in the Patherkandi Model Higher Secondary School under Patherkandi PS. At the time of marriage the petitioner was posted at Kashmir and came to his residence only for the purpose of his marriage. The said school of the respondent is situated at a distance of about 20 km from her matrimonial house situated at village East Krishnanagar. Prior to the marriage she used to reside alone at a rented house at Silchar Road, Karimganj Town. It is averred that just after two days of the performance of ‘Chaturthamangal’ ceremony i.e. on 26/05/2003 she became adamant to come to her said rented house disregarding the request of her husband, the petitioner for staying at her matrimonial house. Ultimately, she left her matrimonial house and started to reside at her rented house at Karimganj Town. The petitioner however stayed with her for few days before leaving for his place of posting at Kashmir. It is alleged that after few days the respondent without any information brought all her furniture, goods and ornaments, that were given to her at the time of marriage, from her matrimonial house to her rented house situated at a distance of more than 34 kms from her place of service. The respondent refused to live at her matrimonial house nearer to her place of posting than that of her rented house. Family of the petitioner consisted of aged parents and brothers. For that he faced enormous mental agony as it was almost impossible for him to live with his entire family during the short period of his leave. He failed to convince the respondent for giving up her inflexible attitude. It is further alleged that the respondent wife showed no sign of her affection towards the petitioner. She even refused to visit the house of the petitioner while his father was in death bed. It was noticed that the respondent was very much friendly with one Manash Goala, and she used to take her all decisions as per the advice of said Manash Goala. It is alleged that the respondent keeping the petitioner in dark got aborted her first baby with the help of said Manash Goala. The petitioner knowing about the expiry of his father and pregnancy of the
Contd..P/3 3
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
respondent came to his house on 07/01/2005. On 8th January 2005 she gave birth of a son at Red Cross Hospital, Karimganj. At that time he was present in the hospital. After her release, he on 15/01/2005 again requested her to come with him at village East Krishnanagar to participate in the Sraddha Ceremony of her father in law, but she flatly refused to go to the house of the petitioner. She rather informed him that she had taken decision not to keep any relation with the petitioner and asked the petitioner not to come to her rented house any further. Thereby she completely deserted the petitioner on 15th January 2005. However, for the interest of the son, the petitioner and his elderly family members approached the father of the respondent to sit for a discussion for amicable settlement of the dispute. Accordingly, on 24/11/2008 the respondent and her father came to the residence of the petitioner and set for a discussion to settle the dispute amicably. In the said discussion the elder family members of the petitioner requested the respondent to come back to her matrimonial house with the minor son and to leave the rented house. On such request she became annoyed and came out of her matrimonial house along with her father threatening the petitioner and his family members to teach a good lesson. With that view she in collusion with her father, brother and some other filed a false complaint under Section 498(A) IPC. The same was registered as Ratabari PS Case No. 125/2008, corresponding GR Case No. 1032/2008. In that case the petitioner was arrested by police and for that he had be in police custody for four days. After full trial the case he vide judgment and order dated 12/09/2011 was acquitted from the charge framed under Section 498(A) IPC. It is further averred that due to the aforesaid cruel and inhuman conduct of the respondent it is no longer safe for the petitioner to live with the respondent any further. Prayer is therefore made for a decree of dissolution of marriage and alternatively for a decree of judicial separation.
2. The respondent by filing WS admitted the marriage, paternity of the child, service of the petitioner in the Assam Regiment, her service as LD clerk of the Patherkandi Model Higher Secondary School and her original paternal homestead at village West Krishnanagar, but denying all the allegations contested the case. She denied that distance between her said place of work in the said school and East Krishnanagar as 20 kms. She categorically denied all the
Contd..P/4 4
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
allegations as brought against her regarding her adamant attitude for staying at her rented house at Karimganj just after 2 days of the ‘chaturthamangal’ ceremony. According to her, all the allegations are imaginary and false. She with force denied that she with the help of Manash Goala got her first baby aborted which according to her is a defamatory statement.
3. The respondent’s case is that during the time of negotiation of marriage, the fact of her attending service staying at rented house at Karimganj was very much known to the husband petitioner, and it was agreed by him that she would maintain her place of residence at rented house at Karimganj due to better communication with Patherkandi, and for attending her duties smoothly. Further, she being office assistant has to come to the office of the Inspector of School, KDC at Karimganj Town for official purpose. Upon consideration of such aspects, it was agreed by both the parties that after the marriage she would maintain her place of residence at the same house of Silchar Road, Karimganj town where she had been living since her getting job. The petitioner never approached the respondent-wife to bring her to his place of service. Although, he has five married brothers but in his paternal house only his parents used to live in. According to her, the distance between East Krishnanagar and Patherkandi is far more than that of the distance between Patherkandi and Karimganj. Communication in between both the places is more hazardous. The respondent further averred that, after the marriage the petitioner himself along with his mother and own sister, escorted the respondent to her rented house of Silchar road, Karimganj. After staying in the said rented house the petitioner went to her place of work. Thereafter in several occasions the petitioner stayed in the said rented house with her as and when he came on leave. She used to visit her in- laws house at East Krishnanagar to meet and look after her mother in law in almost regularly in Holidays. But the petitioner himself and at the instance of his mother approached the respondent-wife almost regularly for her resignation from the service, which she denied. So, a dispute cropped up. In-spite of this, the respondent-wife maintained her marital obligation towards the petitioner- husband and in laws. While her father in law was in old age ailment she went on several times to see and look after him at East Krishnanagar, but later-on during
Contd..P/5 5
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
the advance stage of her pregnancy she could not go to her in-laws house to look after her father in law. She with the help of her relatives from her father’s side got herself admitted to Karimganj Red Cross hospital and gave birth of a son on 08/01/2005. Name of the son is Alok Chatterjee. On the following day she got information about the death of her father in law. On 10/01/2005 the petitioner husband while returning from his place of work met her in the hospital and staying there for sometimes went to his house to join the religious ceremony for the death of his father. She got released from the hospital on 12/01/2005. Due to her physical weakness could not join in the ‘Sraddha’ ceremony of her father in law. It is alleged that the petitioner husband taking her such absence as an excuse started behaving rudely with her and also coming to her rented house threatened her to assault. Thereafter, he went to his place of work. After few months she went to her in-laws house at East Krishnanagar to arrange ‘Annaprasan’ of her son. But her mother in law did not cooperate with her. In- spite of that she with great difficulty performed the ceremony and returned back to her rented house. In that ceremony the respondent did not join. It is alleged that since then the petitioner husband intentionally did not keep touch with her and their son. The respondent also did not send any amount towards the maintenance of the son. On 24/11/2008, she at the instance of the maternal uncle of the petitioner for solving the dispute went to her in-laws house. Her father also went there. On that night the petitioner husband and his other relative created pressure upon her for leaving her job and for residing at her in- laws her permanently which she objected. However, she remained in her in-laws house; whereas her father returned back. It is alleged that her husband started behaving cruelly and at about 3-00 o’clock late night she was mercilessly bitten by him. She then lodged FIR at Ratabari PS. The same was registered as Ratabari PS Case No. 125/2008. The same was charge sheeted u/s. 498(A) IPC. Due to incorrect insertion of the section he was acquitted from the charge. It is pleaded that the acquittal from the said charge in no way can give him any benefit to file a a case divorce against her on the ground of cruelty. She was never cruel with her husband, the petitioner and she never deserted him. It is further averred that the respondent-wife made petition before the authority of the petitioner-husband for granting maintenance in her favour and her son. In reply to the said letter the concerned Commanding Officer vide letter dated 26/01/2009 stated that as per
Contd..P/6 6
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
the service record the petitioner husband was still unmarried. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner with an ulterior intention for a further marriage did not disclose his marriage to his authority. So, according to the wife-respondent, the petitioner-husband falsely filed this case. Prayer is therefore made for dismissal of this suit with cost and compensatory cost.
4. Upon the pleadings the following two numbers of issues were framed. (i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a decree as prayed for? (ii) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled?
5. In support of the case the respective case both the parties examined two witnesses on each side as PW and DW.
6. To decide the above issues I have heard ld. counsel of both sides at length and also perused the entire evidence on record.
ISSUE NO. I
7. It is evident that the petitioner used to reside outside for his service, and there had been no usual cohabitation between the parties since their marriage as solemnized on 21/05/2003. Since after the marriage the respondent used to attend her school at Patherkandi residing in a rented house. There she works as an Office Assistant. Their son got birth on 08/01/2005 at Red-cross hospital. According to the respondent, her father in law died on 09/01/2005 and due to her post pregnancy sickness she could not go to her matrimonial house. The petitioner coming from his place of work met her on 10/01/2005 in the said hospital and returned back to his paternal house. She could not attend the ‘Sraddha’ ceremony of her father in law due to her illness, and taking the same as an excuse the petitioner-husband started behaving with her rudely and threatened to assault her. Thereafter the petitioner went to his place of service. ‘Annaprasan’ ceremony of her son was performed at her matrimonial house without any cooperation from her mother in law. The petitioner did not attend the ceremony.
Contd..P/7 7
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
8. She denied that since two days after the ‘chaturthamangal’ ceremony she had been residing at Karimganj and only on 24/11/2008 she visited her matrimonial house. According to her, before the settlement of their marriage, her husband and in laws agreed to her proposal that, after the marriage she would stay at Karimganj in the rented house. It has been come out in the cross examination that she procuring house building loan from SBI, Karimganj Branch purchased a house in the month of January 2014 and has been residing there shifting from her rented house. She further admitted that she did not inform anything to her husband regarding her willingness to purchase the land, and also about the said purchase, and also her shifting to her said purchased house. From the above piece of evidence, it appears that she had lost all her interest on her husband, the petitioner. She denied that she keeping her husband and in laws in dark arranged ‘annaprasan’ ceremony of her son. She further denied that against the wishes of the petitioner and in laws she arranged ‘annaprasan’ ceremony at Raj Hotel, Karimganj.
9. DW 2 is the brother of the respondent. According to him, since prior to the marriage between the parties he had been residing with the respondent in a rented house at Karimganj for his study in Higher Secondary final year. After the marriage, on the refusal of the respondent to reside in her matrimonial house the petitioner started assaulting her regularly as and when the petitioner came on leave. His further evidence is that he being a co-resident with her elder sister, the respondent, raised objection to such regular assault of the petitioner, but of no result. By this time he completed his Higher Secondary Education and was engaged in a pharmacy at Karimganj town for a short period residing in same rented house of his elder sister, the respondent. Due to such assault, almost regularly by the petitioner he left the said rented house of the respondent and went to his permanent house at West Krishnanagar. This piece of evidence of regular assault is not at all corroborated by the respondent, the DW 1, both in her WS and also in her evidence, in as much as, both as per her WS and evidence the petitioner agreed to reside with her in a rented house and used to reside there as and when he came from his place of service, and only for her non-attending in the ‘sraddha’ ceremony of her father in law he taking an excuse started behaving rudely and also threatened to assault her. His further evidence is that after his
Contd..P/8 8
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
leaving of the rented house the respondent gave birth of her son at Red-cross hospital. Two days after the birth the petitioner getting information of the death of his father on the way to his paternal house met the respondent in the hospital. The responded due to her post pregnancy ailment could not attend the ‘sraddha’ ceremony of her father in law and for which the petitioner assaulted the respondent. This piece of evidence regarding assault is also not supported by the respondent herself as DW 1. Subsequently, maternal uncle of the petitioner approached for settlement of the dispute through sitting, and the sitting was fixed on 24/11/2008. Thus it appears that evidence is totally silent about happening of anything for the period starting from the ‘sraddha’ ceremony and the said date of sitting for settlement. Surprisingly he adduced nothing about the ‘annaprasan’ ceremony of the son of the respondent, although according to him, he was at that time at his father’s house at West Krishnanagar.
10. He also gave contradictory statement in the cross examination stating that he left the rented house of the respondent in the month of November 2005. Further he deposed that he had last opportunity to meet the petitioner about 6/7 years back. For the last 5 years he has been working in the State of Gujrat. There is no normal relation in between both the parties. He denied the suggestion that he did not know anything about the alleged incident of 24/11/2008 between the parties. He however admitted that he did not give any statement to the police in the GR Case bearing No. 1032 of 2008 lodged by the respondent i.e. the case u/s. 498(A) IPC. There clearly appears some missing link in his evidence. Moreover, from the above contradictory statement and his uncorroborated evidence of assault, it clearly appears that he concealing the real fact adduced evidence at the instance of his elder sister, the respondent.
11. Admittedly, after the ‘Annaprasan’ ceremony of their son, the petitioner did not keep regular touch with the respondent-wife regularly. According to the petitioner, since 15/01/2005 the respondent deserted him and she did not keep any touch with him for his no fault. Whatever it may be from the evidence of both the parties it is clearly evident that since after 2005 there had been no normal relation and cohabitation between the parties, and only an attempt for conciliation was admittedly made on 24/11/2008. After that the
Contd..P/9 9
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
respondent lodged an FIR against the petitioner alleging that she had been assaulted by the petitioner on the night of 24/11/2008 and for that the petitioner had to be in the jail hazot. According to the respondent filing of such a case does not amount to a cruelty, in as much as, the respondent only alleged about the assault and not more than that. The petitioner admittedly got acquittal in the case being charged under section 498(A) IPC on the basis of FIR lodged by the respondent. According to the respondent, the plea of desertion w.e.f. 15/01/2005 is totally false. The evidence of the respondent that the ‘Annaprasan’ ceremony was performed in her matrimonial house having been not corroborated by her brother, the DW 2, and also not convincing enough is difficult to be relied upon especially as she denied the suggestion that against the wishes of her husband/petitioner and her in laws she arranged ‘Annaprasan’ ceremony at Raj Hotel, Karimganj.
12. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that cruelty is not defined anywhere in the Hindu Marriage Act and the same is to be assessed under the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Nature of mental cruelty varies from case to case. In support of the contention observation as made by our home High Court as published in (2014) 5 GLR 215 in para No. 17 in the case of Dr. Jashodeb Arjun Vs. Chirantaninand and others is cited which reads as “In the case of mental cruelty, a spouse may be hurt mentally by the act of the other spouse. Mental injury or hurt, is not visible like the physical ones. It could never be felt or seen. The court has hard and challenging task to determine whether a particular case involves mental cruelty causing harm to a spouse. The mandate of the Apex Court in Praveen Mehta (Supra) i.e. {(2002) 5 SCC 706} is that the mental cruelty has to be established from the facts of a given case. The guiding principle has been laid down in paragraph 21 which is quoted hereunder: “21. Cruelty for the purpose of section 13(1) (ia) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter and it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A
Contd..P/10 10
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose the question whether such behavior is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging form the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other.”
13. In the light of the above observation, it is further submitted that as per prevailing social norms, a Hindu Bride is always expected to reside at her matrimonial house and the same practice and custom is prevailing in the society to which the parties belonged. No reason is found to differ with the above contention. Therefore, request on the part of the petitioner to the respondent for her living at her matrimonial house is very natural. Further according to the petitioner, the distance between the place of work of the respondent and her matrimonial house is less than the distance in between her rented house and her place of work, which is however not admitted by the respondent. The ld. counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the court can take judicial notice of the distance. It appears from the evidence on the record that the plea of distance taken by both sides is not at all a major one and is very negligible. The evidence that the respondent purchased a house at Karimganj town without knowledge of the petitioner clearly shows her intention to keep her husband, the petitioner away from her.
14. The ld. defence counsel further submitted that the evidence discloses that the respondent did not change her surname after her marriage with the petitioner and she maintains her original surname. The non-changing of the surname since after the marriage according to the ld. counsel for the petitioner clearly shows that the respondent from the initial stage of her matrimonial relation did not want to keep any normal relation with the petitioner and her in- laws. Under the prevailing custom of the society to which the parties belong and the fact that their paternal houses are situated at villages, it is always expected
Contd..P/11 11
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
that the bride would use the surname of the bridegroom. It is evident that the respondent while contesting this case always used the surname of her father being Misra and not of her husband, the petitioner being Chatterjee. On the contrary, ld. counsel for the respondent has submitted that mere acquittal from the charge u/s. 498(A) IPC does not necessarily mean that the case was a false and frivolous one, and filing of a case does not amount to a cruelty. In support of the contention citation is made being published in (2014) 4 GLR 56 in a case of Anju Saha Vs. Gobinda Saha. Relevant observation is made in para 13 by our home Hour Court which read as “In the instant case, though certain allegations, which in the event of being proved, may amount mental cruelty, were levelled by the respondent-husband against the appellant/wife, those could not be proved by the respondent/husband as because criminal proceedings under Section 494 & 498(A) IPC have been instituted by the appellant/wife against the respondent/husband, it would not amount to mental cruelty against the respondent/husband, as the appellant/wife has a right to institute such proceedings, unless of course it is proved that such proceedings are false and frivolous.” It is seen that such observation is also made in (2014) 5 GLR about the false criminal complaint in para no. 13 of the case as “mental torture has been multiplied due to institution of criminal case against him on false allegations of demand for dowry u/s. 498(A) IPC. It has been persuaded that institution of false criminal case itself constitutes a strong ground for seeking dissolution of marriage and a decree of divorce under the provision of section 13(1)(ia) of the 1955 Act.” The ld. counsel of the respondent has submitted that the criminal case filed by the respondent against the petitioner with allegation of assault and the wife/respondent is not responsible for registration of the case u/s. 498(A) IPC and subsequent framing of charge under the same section. It is seen that the alleged assault on the night of the admitted sitting for conciliation is also could not be proved by way of corroborative evidence by the respondent in this present case not to speak of the connected GR Case. It appears very unnatural that any wife being beaten by her husband in the night could left her matrimonial house without making any complaint to any inmates or any neighbouring people, and lodge FIR after few days. The evidence of the petitioner that the respondent after the sitting left her matrimonial house with a threatening that she would teach a lesson is appears to be very reliable being corroborated by the PW 2. The evidence of regular assault adduced by the
Contd..P/12 12
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
DW 2 as already been discussed is found to be not at all reliable, in as much as the same is not supported by the respondent herself.
15. It is submitted for the respondent that the admitted sitting of both the parties in the house of the petitioner itself proves that the plea of desertion is a false. Evidently, the attempt for conciliation was made by the relatives of the petitioner but the attempt was failed. According to the petitioner he has been falsely implicated after such attempt and for that he had been in the jail hazot for nothing and such harassment due to false implication not only defamed him but also his family members. It appears that the respondent before filing of the criminal case did not at all think that service record of her husband, the respondent would be adversely affected and he would face also many troubles to face trial coming from his difference places of service and that too from a very distance place, sometimes like Kashmir. It thus clearly appears that the respondent knowing about the consequences that would likely to be raised by her husband and also to frustrate the attempt of conciliation filed the criminal case.
16. Ld. counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner from the initial stage of their marriage intentionally and with an ulterior motive to marry another girl abstained from declaring him as married for the purpose of his official record where married column remained as blank. The petitioner while adducing evidence as PW 1 in reply to the question of the court stated that after his marriage with the respondent he filed a petition for incorporating the name of the respondent as wife in his official record but due to the dispute between them the process did not progress at his instance and till date in the official record column of marital status remain as blank. He further answered that he did not submit any marriage certificate to his authority on the ground that since after the marriage mental differences started. This piece of evidence remained totally unrebutted in as much as both the parties declined to cross examine on the above point. Therefore it appears that from the very beginning of their marriage there had been difference of opinion and the same might have not encouraged the petitioner to pursue his office to fill up the column as married.
Contd..P/13 13
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
17. Ld. defence counsel in support of the plea of cruelty has cited following decisions in support of the contention of cruelty due to filing of allegedly false case u/s. 498(A) IPC and other grounds as averred in the petition and adduced in the evidence and also cited decisions with regard to the plea of desertions etc.
(i) AIR 2013 ORISSA 181 in Abinash Samal Vs. Gitipuspa Samal focusing the head note that “In one of such case parents were arrested and taken to custody – Only inference could be drawn as to mental torture caused by wife upon husband – Parties also living separately for about more than six years – Matrimonial bond between parties ruptured beyond repair because of mental cruelty caused by wife – Husband entitled to divorce.”
(ii) AIR 2012 GAUHATI 128 in Smti Bhulu Rani Dey (Das) Vs. Rabi Dey focusing on the observation about “Irretrievable breakdown of marriage.”
(iii) AIR 2012 MADHYA PRADESH 40 Dinesh Nagda Vs. Shantibai Dinesh Nagda focusing on the point of divorce “Mental cruelty resulting from false criminal proceedings initiated by wife against husband and divorce for irretrievable break down of marriage and also on the point of divorce due to desertion for 10/12 years etc.” (iv) AIR 2011 HIMACHAL PRADESH Of Bhikam Ram Vs. Satya Devi focusing on the point of “cruelty and for refusal to cohabit with the husband for long 5 years and filing of criminal case by the wife etc.” (v) GLR 2014 (5) 215 of Dr. Jashodev Arjun Vs. Chirantaninand (Arjun) and another.
18. Perused all the decisions as cited above. It is a well settled position of law that cruelty both may be mental and physical and it differs from case to case. Here in the instant case from the discussion of evidence on the record it is clearly evident that the respondent tried to make out her case by bringing allegation of torture both mentally and physically by way of giving false uncorroborated evidence through her younger brother, the DW 2. It is further evident that since after the marriage there had been no happy conjugal life in between the parties. The demand of the petitioner for residing of the respondent
Contd..P/14 14
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
at her matrimonial house is very natural as per the prevailing customs of their society. The non-using of husband’s title by the wife, the respondent clearly shows her adverse attitude and dis-respect towards the petitioner and his family. Further, evidence is not found to be convincing enough to suggest that the respondent had an intention to visit her in-laws house to maintain her good relation with her husband and in-laws. Further, no attempt is seen to have been made on the part of the respondent for re-conciliation, rather it is seen that attempt on the part of the petitioner about after 5 years of the marriage failed and which resulted him to face criminal trial u/s. 498(A) IPC. Under the facts and circumstances of this case filing of such a case against her husband, the petitioner, who had to stay at different places of India including Kashmir for his service is considering as nothing but a harassment and cruelty. It is further evident that especially since after the ‘Annaprasan’ ceremony there had been no cohabitation between the parties due to their mental differences. For such non-cohabitation there had been no complaint on the part of the wife/respondent. Thus it clearly appears that the wife/respondent was happy keeping away her male child from the society of the petitioner and also keeping herself elope accordingly. This indifferent attitude for her husband can be inferred from the entire facts and circumstances of this case. A husband who stays at different places for his job especially in the case of Army naturally can expect that his wife would behave with caringly and compassionately with him on his visit after a long gap. In the instant case this attitude is found missing. The absence of such type of behaviour can also be inferred as cruelty and desertion.
19. In view of the above discussions, contentions, observations and evidence in its entirety, this issue is decided in the affirmative in favour of the petitioner that he is entitled to get a decree of divorce as prayed for.
ISSUE NO.II
20. From the evidence on the record and from the above discussion of the issue No. I it is seen that the respondent is a working lady and she never claimed any maintenance from the petitioner still filing of this case. She further purchased a house of her own. So, it is evident that she is able to maintain herself.
Contd..P/15 15
Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 59 OF 2011
Therefore, it is felt that no alimony is required to be granted to the respondent for herself but the amount of maintenance as pendentilite maintenance as granted towards the maintenance of the son shall be continued to be paid by the petitioner till any other decision of proceeding u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. or any other section of law, and till attaining majority of the child. This issue is accordingly decided.
21. In the result, this suit is decreed on contest but without any cost with a declaration that marital tie between the parties as dissolved.
22. Prepare a decree accordingly.
Judgment is pronounced and delivered in the open court under my seal and signature on this 28th day of November, 2014.
Transcribed at my dictation, Corrected by me and every page Bears my signature.
(K. CHOUDHURY) (K. CHOUDHURY) District Judge District Judge Karimganj Karimganj
Dictation taken & transcribed by me.
Debabrata Das, (Stenographer)