DIPAK KUMAR ROY Vs. ANJALI ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Dipak Kumar Roy, husband (for brevity the petitioner), could not succeed before the court of the District Judge, Purulia in. obtaining the Decree of Divorce against Sm. Anjali Roy, his wife (for short mentioned as the Respondent hereafter ). He has, therefore, come up in appeal under Section 2 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short mentioned as the said Act hereafter), against the judgment dated April 6, 1983 of the learned District Judge, Purulia, dismissing his suit.

(2.) THE dissolution of marriage was claimed by the petitioner on the allegations that the Respondent committed adultery and treated the petitioner with cruelty. It was his case that according to Hindu rites, thee marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place at village Kumardanga, P. S. Onda, district Bankura and in the house of the father of the respondent on 31st May, 1978, when the petitioner was aged 38 years and the Respondent was about 25/27 years old and the marriage was consumated and a son was born on 2nd April 1979. It has also been stated that after the solemnization of the marriage, the petitioner came to his residence at Palashola with his wife and from the date of arrival of the respondent in his house, the petitioner found her extremely wild and ill-tempered.

(3.) ALSO been alleged that on the day of Baubhat, the even refused to perform the ceremony of striachar, broke the pitcher i. e. Kalashi, Sankha Balay, tore garlands and removed vermilion from her head and left the when striachar and other functions were to be performed. It has further been stated that on 20th June 1978, the petitioner along with the respondent left Adra for Udaipur, for attending the Annual General Meeting of All India Station Masters' Association, which was to be held there from 23rd June 1978 to 25th June, 1978 and the service-colleagues of the petitioner also went along with him. It is alleged that the respondent during the time of journey by train and stay at Udaipur, behaved with the petitioner in wild manner and treated him with cruelty, so much so, that the colleagues of the petitioner became apprehensive about the life and safety of the petitioner. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent became furious and declined to proceed to Udaipur in the experiment with him and ultimately, she travelled in another compartment. It has been alleged that in Udaipur also the respondent behaved wildly and treated the petitioner with cruelty. It is further alleged that the respondent, during her petitioner at udaipur moved here and there without informing the petitioner and whenever the petitioner asked about her movements she quarrelled and abused him in filthy language.