SMTI ANANTA Vs. RAMCHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have read the well versed judgment written by my esteemed brother. I am in full agreement with the conclusion My Lord has arrived at. To supplement, I however wish to add few lines in this regard.

(2.) HIS Lordship referred to the conciliation proceeding we had in our Chamber. We intentionally held the conciliation proceeding in presence of the minor child who was accompanying his father. From the demeanour of the child I cannot resist my temptation to observe that My lord is correct to the extent that the child was under the influence of his father. The child was about 6-7 years when he was separated from his mother, according to the respondent. He deposed before the learned district Judge when he was 11 years. Now, he is 12 years. The factum of influence, in my view, is not unnatural because of his tender age and long dissociation with his mother.

(3.) AS has been observed by My Lord, the learned District Judge placed heavy reliance on the evidence of the minor child while coming to the conclusion that the appellant was responsible for mental cruelty being inflicted on her husband. My Lord has analyzed the evidence in detail. I need not repeat the same. My endeavour is to find out whether the evidence available on record could support the allegation of mental cruelty.