NARAYAN CHANDRA DEY Vs. KABITA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge on 8th March, 2006 in Matrimonial Suit No. 109 of 2003 at the instance of the appellant/husband. By the said decree, the husband's suit for divorce was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge.

(2.) THE legality of the said judgment and decree is under challenge before us.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 12th December, 2004 in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the relevant time, the husband/appellant was posted at Muri Railway Station as railway employee. The parties last resided together at Muri railway quarter. Initially, the husband filed a suit for divorce against the wife on the ground of cruelty in the Court of the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. The said suit was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 55 of 1996. The wife/respondent appeared in the said suit and expressed her willingness to stay with the husband. Since the wife expressed her willingness to stay with the husband, the husband withdrew the said suit for divorce unconditionally. Ultimately, the wife did not come back. She filed a complaint against the husband and the other relatives of the husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of Bishnupur. Despite such complaint was made by the wife against the husband and his other family members, the husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for restitution of the conjugal rights in the Court of the District Judge at Bankura which was subsequently transferred to the Court of the 2nd Additional District Judge, at Bankura. The said suit was registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 77 of 1999. The wife appeared in the said suit and contested the same by filing written statement. The said suit was ultimately decreed on 20th April, 2002 by declaring the husband's entitlement to get a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against the wife as per the provision of Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife did not challenge the said decree in any higher forum. She accepted the said decree. But, she did not come back to the matrimonial home of the parties in compliance of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights till 12th September, 2003. Under such circumstances, the husband filed the present suit for divorce against the wife on three grounds, namely, (I) cruelty, (ii) desertion and (iii) refusal to resume cohabitation with the husband in terms of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights of the parties passed by the learned Trial Judge.