BIDHAN CHANDRA SINHA Vs. SUSHMITA SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband who is appellant before me, filed an application under Section 13(1)(i), (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The .assertion in the petition filed the husband was. therefore, that the wife, after the solemnization of the marriage had voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than the petitioner; that after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty; and that the husband has been deserted by the respondent for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately after the presentation of the petition.

(2.) The facts as stated in the petition are that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent No. 1, Smt. Sushmita Sinha alias Sikha Sinha on 13th June, 1978 at Kashini Bazar. Bolpur, District Birbhum, West Bengal. it is asserted in the petition that after the marriage the parties lived at Bolpur and 15 days after the marriage, the petitioner came Delhi and the respondent stayed back with her father. It was asserted by the petitioner that when his letters to the respondent to come to Delhi did not have any response, he brought the respondent from Bolpur to Delhi. The petitioner stated that the respondent left Delhi for her father's houe in the middle of February 1979, on the plea that she has to complete her studies and stayed with her father till April, 1979. Respondent came to Delhi at the end of April. 1979 and stayed in Delhi for about month thereafter. After she had come back to Delhi the result of the examination which she had taken was declared and communicated to Delhi. After that she insisted for doing further studies like Ph.D. This was done by the respondent wishes of the petitioner who wanted her to do further studies by taking admission in Jawahar Lal Nehru university. Delhi. The ressondent did not do so and insisted that she would pursue the studies in her father's house and accordirgly left Delhi.

(3.) The petitioner went to Bolpur again in September, 1979 to bring the respondent back but she did not want to come hack on the plea that she had taken admission in Vishwa Bharti University. There is also an assertion in the plaint that the petitioner was humiliated in his in-laws house and as such he returned to Delhi.