SUBINOY DEY Vs. RINA HAWALDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-husband against the judgement and order dated 28 September, 2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Port Blair in MAT Suit No. 41 of 2017 (old No. 31 of 2014). By the impugned judgement and order the learned Judge dismissed the petition for divorce filed under Sections 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the parties hereto, who were both divorcees, got married in accordance with the Hindu customary rites on 18 January, 2012 in Port Blair. After the marriage, the respondent went to her maternal house as per customs on 21 January, 2012. Thereafter, there was no communication from the respondent. Being concerned, after a few days, the petitioner visited the house of his father-in-law and found the respondent in the company of her former husband, namely Abhilash. The petitioner admonished the respondent and returned to his rented house. On 31 January, 2012 the respondent informed the petitioner over mobile phone that she will not return to the matrimonial home and she was not prepared to continue with the marital relationship. The respondent has completely withdrawn from the society of the petitioner. This has caused the petitioner much mental agony and pain. The respondent has been living separately from the petitioner for more than two years and there is no chance that they will live as husband and wife in future. The respondent has deserted the petitioner and has treated the petitioner with mental cruelty. Hence the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent should be dissolved by the decree of divorce.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the parties were living together in the petitioner's rented accommodation after marriage. Sometime thereafter, the petitioner left the respondent at the latter's house at Mayabunder in September, 2013 wanting her to join her earlier job. Even after filing of the matrimonial suit in 2014 the parties resided together mostly at the respondent's house at Mayabunder. The respondent did not maintain any relationship with her ex-husband after her marriage with the petitioner. The respondent's ex-husband married the respondent's sister after the respondent married the petitioner. Even after filing of the divorce suit the petitioner and the respondent led conjugal life. That is why the respondent withdrew the maintenance case that she had filed in Mayabunder. The respondent is ready and willing to return to the matrimonial home and spend life with the petitioner. The respondent has not deserted the petitioner nor has meted out any mental cruelty to the petitioner.