KRUSNA CHANDRA MOHANTY Vs. SUDHIRALATA DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal as well as the cross appeal filed by the Respondent is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, whereby the Family Court passed a decree for judicial separation under Sec. 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It further directed the Appellant to pay Rs. 300/ - per month to the Respondent for maintenance of the youngest son. Both of them were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The Appellant filed an application under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent. Both parties are governed by Hindu Law. Their marriage was solemnized about 30 years back and out of their wedlock two sons and one daughter were born. Few years after their marital life, their was bickering, quarrel and rancor between them as a result of which it was impossible for either of them to continue to live together. It has been alleged by the Respondent that the Appellant developed illicit relationship with one, Sanjukta Das, as employee of this Court and when she objected to it, the Appellant deserted her and continued to reside with said Sanjukta Das. She was not arrayed as a party before the Family Court, nor was she examined as a witness by either arty. It is also the admitted case of the parties that at the instance of the Respondent -wife the local police had taken some action and G.R. Case No. 1339 of 1990 was started against the Appellant. Also there was a disciplinary proceeding being D.P. No. 18 of 1986 initiated against him. In the said disciplinary proceeding the Respondent having not proved those allegations, it was dropped. In the said disciplinary proceeding, the Appellant is said to have been acquitted of the charges. Since their relationship became sour and there was no chance of their reunion, the Appellant -husband was constrained to file an application under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Both parties were led to trial. The Appellant had examined 9 witnesses; and the Respondent too had examined 9 witnesses. After a thorough examination of the evidence, the learned Judge, Family Court granted a decree of judicial separation. So the Appellant being aggrieved by such of judicial separation, has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant urged with vehemence that even assuming that the decree of judicial separation is worked out since in the meanwhile about five years period has elapsed, this Court is not precluded from examining the grounds for granting a decree for divorce. We requested the counsel appearing for both the parties to come to a settlement since both parties are in Government service and their age of superannuation is also nearing. But unfortunately, the Respondent did not agree to such settlement and she insisted the matter to be decided on merits.