SATYAKI PAUL CHOWDHURY Vs. MOUMITA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this appeal the petitioner -husband has challenged the judgment dated 18.12.2013 whereby the learned Judge, Family Court has rejected the divorce petition filed by the husband and also the order dated 11.11.2013 whereby the application of the husband under Sec. 65, 65A & 65B of the Evidence Act for admitting into evidence the Compact Disk(CD) has been rejected.

(2.) In view of the decision which we propose to take it is not necessary to give the detailed facts of the case. It would suffice to say that the petitioner -husband got married to the respondent -wife on 10.3.2010 at Agartala according to Hindu rites. They stayed together at Mumbai for a short period of about less than three months. Thereafter disputes started between them and the husband filed a petition for grant of divorce in the Court of the Family Judge, Agartala praying for divorce. He also filed a Special Leave Petition(SLP) praying that the petition may be entertained even though one year had not expired from the marriage. This application was allowed ex parte. The wife challenged the said order before the High Court and the High Court set aside this order and directed the Family Court to reconsider the matter after hearing both the parties. Thereafter, the Family Judge not only heard both the parties but recorded preliminary evidence on the issue whether the petition should be entertained within one year or not. Finally, the learned Family Judge passed an order that since eleven months had already expired he was entertaining the application. This order has not been challenged.

(3.) The record of the case clearly reveals that both the parties, despite efforts made both at the level of the Family Judge as well as at the High Court, have not been able to reconcile the matter. They are fighting a bitter battle with all bitterness at their command. No side is leaving a stone unturned to cause harm to the other side.