MALAY KUMAR PAKHIRA Vs. PAPIA PAKHIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated March 31, 2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Third Court, Howrah, in Matrimonial Suit No.430 of 2001 thereby allowing the application under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and thereby passing a decree for judicial separation on and from the day of passing the judgment and decree.

(2.) The short fact is that the wife/respondent filed the petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. According to her application, her marriage with the husband/appellant was solemnized on July 29, 1995, as per Hindu rites and customs and the said marriage was also registered under the provisions of the said Act. Thereafter, they lived together and two daughters were born in the wedlock. But the appellant was very much suspicious about the character of the respondent. The appellant and other members of the family subjected her to mental and physical cruelty for realising valuable articles such as, T,V., freeze, furniture, etc. from her father and ultimately she was deserted by the appellant on November 4, 2000. The respondent was compelled to live in the house of her father along with her two minor daughters. On the other hand, the appellant is a computer engineer having master's degree and is now attached to Kalyani Engineering College. He earns Rs. 20,000/- a month but never cared for the maintenance of the respondent and her two minor daughters. In spite of her best efforts to lead a happy conjugal life, the respondent was treated with cruelty by the appellant and for that reason it was not possible for the respondent to live with the appellant in her matrimonial home. So she filed the petition under section 10 of the Act.

(3.) The appellant contested the matrimonial suit by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that the respondent is a quarrelsome lady and she failed to discharge domestic duties. The appellant tried his best to adjust with the respondent in vain. Ultimately, the respondent left her matrimonial house along with her two daughters and belongings including the gold ornaments. The appellant went to bring her back to his own on January 23, 2001; but she refused to come. So the suit should be dismissed.