SAGARIKA MOHANTY Vs. BHANU KISHORE BISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2005 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, in Civil Proceeding No. 424 of 1999 allowing the application filed by the Respondent under Section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by the decree of divorce.

(2.) THE case of the Respondent, who was the applicant before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack is that the marriage between him and the Appellant was performed on 14.2.1997 according to Hindu rites and after marriage both of them stayed together as husband and wife in the house of the Respondent. The further case of the Respondent is that the Appellant did not want to bear a child and therefore, she refused cohabitation without use of contraceptive whereas the Respondent wanted cohabitation for the purpose of maintaining the heredity. He also alleged that the Appellant was suffering from schizophrenia and was not preparing food nor taking his care. She was always quarreling with him and his family members and on one occasion threw plates on his face without any reason. She was also in the habit of humiliating him in public and seven months after the marriage she left for her paternal home without his permission and never came back in spite of several approaches made by him. Respondent also alleged that while living separately, he met with a motor accident and was medically treated but the Appellant never turned up to see him during the period of treatment. On these grounds, the application for divorce was filed alleging cruelty and desertion. The allegations of the Respondent against the Appellant were denied by the Appellant whereas marriage between the parties was admitted. It is the case of the Appellant that the Respondent never wanted to have a child and was using contraceptive in spite of her objection. There was a demand of dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/ - which could not be paid by her parents and no fulfillment of the dowry demand, has led to the present situation. It was also specifically pleaded by the Appellant that she was driven out from the house by the Respondent and she had never deserted the Respondent or behaved in a cruel manner, as alleged by the Respondent. The learned Judge, Family Court taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced before him came to a conclusion that the plea set out by the Respondent with regard to demand of dowry is based on no material and on certain occasions the Appellant had behaved in a cruel manner with the Respondent and his family members. The court also found that the Appellant was guilty of desertion and cruelty. On the above findings, the learned Judge, Family Court allowed the application but did not grant any alimony.

(3.) AT the time of hearing of this appeal, the Court found that the parties are living separately since 1997 and there was no scope for living together. As a matter of fact, the Respondent was not willing to take the Appellant at all and he also expressed the very same view before the trial court when the case was pending. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, therefore, argued the case on merit and also prayed for permanent alimony in the event, the appeal is dismissed.