AMIT MANDAL Vs. CYNTHIA MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2010 passed by Family Court, Bilaspur, in Civil Suit No. 24-A/07, whereby the application of the appellant/plaintiff under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1969 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty, has been rejected. The undisputed facts are that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 29.10.2001 as per Christian rites and ceremonies by the Priest of St. Augustine Churh at Tarbahar, Bilaspur, thereafter the respondent/wife had lived with the appellant/husband at her matrimonial home at 27 Kholi, Bilaspur. After some time, the appellant had to go to perform his duties at Bhatgaon area, Surguja, as he was employed and posted at Bhatgaon as Steno in SECL. The respondent/Wife was working as an Accountant in the Sainik Finance Industries Ltd. at Bilaspur. Out of their wedlock, a female child was born on 25.04.2003. Since 20.12.2002, the respondent/wife alongwith the child is residing separately at her mother's house at Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, However, rest of the facts are disputed.

(2.) As per the appellant/plaintiff, the appellant and the respondent were married on 29.10.2001 as per Christian rites and ceremonies at St. Augustine Church, Tarbahar, Bilaspur and after marriage, the respondent had resided with him at her matrimonial home for some time. After some time, the appellant had to leave for Bhatgaon area of Surguja district for discharging his duties as he is employed there as a Steno in SECL. Since from the very inception, on account of difference of opinion, their always used to be tense situation. The respondent without any just and reasonable cause had left the company of the appellant and since 20.12.2002 is residing with her mother at Jarhabhata, Bilaspur. Despite all efforts made by the appellant, she has refused to come back and live with him. Out of their wedlock, a female child was born on 25.04.2003, who is also residing with the respondent. On account of respondent's adamant attitude, she had deserted the company of the appellant without any just and reasonable cause and has thereby committed cruelty towards the appellant. On these grounds, an application for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was filed under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act.

(3.) Case of the respondent/defendant is that the was employed as an Accountant in Sainik Finance Industries Ltd. Since 1996 and this fact was known to the appellant and his family members. Immediately after the marriage, the appellant as well as his family members were harassing and torturing her mentally and physically, on petty matters they used to quarrel with her and time and again ask her to leave the house, on account of which she had an abortion. When she conceived for the second time, then also was no change in the attitude of the appellant as well as his family members, on account of which she, during her pregnancy, used to remain tense, whereas the doctor had advised her to remain tension free. On account of these circumstances, on 20.12.2002 the appellant himself had dropped her at her mother's house and had asked her not to return to her matrimonial home until he asks her. The appellant had also promised that he will take care of her and will provide her everything, which she needs. However, after dropping her at her mother's house on 20.12.2002, the appellant neither came to her, nor cared for her. She had delivered a premature female child of seven months on 25.04.2003 by undergoing operation and all the expenses of the hospital hand to be borne by her and her mother. The appellant had never tried to resolve the disputes and to take her back. On the contrary, all efforts were made by the respondent and her mother for resolving the dispute between them, but on account of adamant attitude of the appellant nothing materialized. Therefore on account of non compromising attitude of the appellant and the cruelty perpetrated on her by the appellant and his family members, she is living with her child at her mothers residence and does not want to live with the appellant.