SWADESH MONDAL Vs. DIPTI MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Marriage is an Institution, responsibility to preserve the institution would lie upon the couple having equal responsibility to maintain it. The couple before us got married on October 14, 1989 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. They started living together maintaining the matrimonial relationship until the discord that culminated in a matrimonial litigation filed on March, 30, 2010 in the court of the Learned District Judge, Howrah being Matrimonial Suit No.276 of 2010. The husband alleged in the plaint, his wife, the respondent above named, committed adultery. According to the husband, on an unspecified day when he returned from his place of work at about 2- 00 P.M. he found one of his colleagues, Kalyan Chakraborty, a police man present in his house. He saw his wife and Kalyan Chakraborty in a compromising position in their bed room. The husband would again say, he tried to pacify his wife so that she would discontinue "illicit link". She was not convinced. She left the house on August, 16, 2008 deserting the husband.

(2.) On these two allegations the husband filed the suit for divorce. From the available records we are not sure why the respondent did not contest the proceeding. The fact would remain, the husband got the suit heard ex parte. The Learned District Judge was, however, not convinced with the evidence that was led before him. The husband examined himself. He was consistent on his stand. He however improved his case by providing particulars of adultery by deposing, he saw them once in compromising position on June, 16, 2005. His wife deserted him on August, 16, 2008. He did not explain what had happened during interregnum. He also deposed, he came to know from his mother, his wife used to visit her paternal place in his absence. He also deposed, his wife took back her "Stridhan". They had no issue out of the wedlock.

(3.) The learned District Judge, Howrah in his judgement and order dated June, 27, 2010 observed, a solitary incident, as deposed, could not be a ground for divorce. The relevant extract is quoted below: