JAYANT KUMAR BARIK Vs. DEEPANJALI BARIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2003 passed by the Court of First Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, in Civil Suit No. 22-A/2001 whereby the suit filed by the appellant/ plaintiff seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") has been dismissed.

(2.) (I). The petition with a prayer for divorce was preferred by the appellant/plaintiff husband inter alia on the ground that he was married to the respondent in the month of May, 1996 according to the Hindu rituals at village Jaramuda, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund. After the marriage, appellant/plaintiff started living with the respondent. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that after the marriage, he went to his official place of posting at District Dantewada as he was in the police department and after a period of time it came to his notice that his wife namely Deepanjali was suffering with mental disorder, which was concealed by the family members of the respondent before the marriage. It was further alleged that the respondent used to suffer mental disorder attacks, consequently, he used to tear off the official papers of the appellant/plaintiff and also used to talk nonsense and further when he used to try to console the wife, he was being abused. It was further alleged that the respondent used to attack the plaintiff and also tried to bite him. Thereafter, the plaintiff/ appellant by the acts of wife became confirmed that the wife was suffering with mental disorder. It was further alleged that after knowing the mental illness of the wife, the husband/ plaintiff used to be under fear to leave the wife alone. Consequently, she was taken to his house at village Mohka. This was also informed to the father of respondent wife and consequently she was treated by the father and uncle. It was further alleged that the family members of respondent started treating the respondent with Jhad-Phunk i.e. witchcraft and looking to it, the plaintiff/ husband took the wife to the Psychiatrist Doctor namely Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla.

(3.) During pendency of this appeal, another application was moved by the plaintiff wherein the amendment is sought for in the plaint on the ground that when the reconciliation between the husband and wife failed, thereafter, a false report was made against the plaintiff and his family members by the respondent wife under Section 498-A of IPC. It is further contended that on such report, a criminal case was registered and charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund. Lastly by an order dated 10.09.2003, passed by the Second Additional Session Judge, the plaintiff along with family members were discharged of the charges from Section 498-A of IPC. In a result, it also leads to cruelty and on the basis of that, the plaintiff appellant is entitled for decree of divorce.