PRABIR KUMAR DAS Vs. PAPIYA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-husband would call in question the legality and validity of the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court dismissing his application for grant of decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the parties were married on 21.1.2002. Prayer for divorce is made on the pleadings that the parties resided together for a period till 5 months prior to the date of presentation of divorce petition. They have 2 daughters out of their wedlock. The respondent was misbehaving with the appellant and his family members soon after the marriage and is not willing to reside with him. Instead, she wishes to reside in her parental house as she is working as Shiksha Karmi. Because of her insistence they resided at Rajim for about 4 years but yet her cruel behaviour continued. During his absence in the house, the respondent tried to assault/slap his mother by using obscene language. When she was confronted with this incident, she started misbehaving, quarrelling and abusing the appellant. Due to this behaviour, the appellant came back to his ancestral house with his mother. The respondent threatened to implicate the appellant in a false case. She categorically and stoutly stated that she cannot live with the appellant and wants to be separate.

(3.) The respondent defended the suit on pleading that the appellant was indifferent towards her and both the daughters. He did not bear the expenses at the time of delivery of the daughters. The appellant and his mother used to treat her well at the time of drawal of monthly salary by her. She was made to commute from Raipur to Rajim for about 3 years after the marriage. The appellant refused to join her company on the pretext that he has to take care of his mother and sisters. In para-10 of the written statement, she has stated that she is ready to reside with the appellant at the place of her posting. Since the appellant works at Raipur, it is not possible for him to commute from Bhilai to Rajim. In additional pleading, she has stated that her mother-in-law is a greedy woman, because of which the marital dispute has occurred between the parties. Her mother-in-law is also responsible for ruining the life of her 2 daughters (appellant's sisters) by separating them from their parents in law. When the respondent refused to maintain the children of the appellant's sister, the entire dispute began. She also alleges that her mother-in-law threw slippers on her. It is also stated that her elder daughter is the student of KPS School, Raipur.