SUTAPA MONDAL Vs. SWAPAN KUMAR KARMAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for review is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 7, 2009, passed in F.A. No. 227 of 2007 by which this Bench allowed a First Appeal thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Purulia in Matrimonial Suit No. 70 of 2006.

(2.) The wife/Respondent of the first appeal has preferred this application for review praying for setting aside the decree of divorce passed in the said first appeal by the Division Bench. The wife has sought to rely upon the alleged subsequent event occurred during the pendency of the first appeal in support of her contention that in view of those subsequent events, we should hold that the alleged acts of cruelty had been condoned by the husband. According to the wife, the parties to the proceedings had access to each other during the pendency of the appeal and they lived together for two days on May 5, 2007 and May 6, 2007 at Deoghar. They had been to Deoghar on May 5, 2007 and then after staying there together on May 5, 2007, May 6, 2007, they returned on May 7, 2007 and thus, there having been resumption of cohabitation between the parties, such fact constituted condonation of the matrimonial offences. It is also contended that the said fact was within the, knowledge of the husband/Appellant/opposite party herein and he has suppressed such fact. The allegation of cruelty and desertion as raised by the husband, according to the wife, stands condoned by cohabitation of the parties at Deoghar in view of the provisions of Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(3.) The applicant has further contended that the learned advocate for the applicant could not point out such development at the time of hearing of the argument of the first appeal due to mistake. The applicant has materials in support of her contention about their staying together at Deoghar. It. is contended on behalf of the applicant that the parties had been to Deoghar as per order of another Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on a pleasure trip. In view of such development of the situation, the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court needs review. So, the application for review has been preferred.