LINGARAJ CHOUDHURY Vs. PRATIVA CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing on instruction of Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Appellant. Despite due notice from this Court, none appears for the Respondent.

(2.) This is an appeal under Sec. 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 from the judgment dtd. 7/2/2015, delivered in Civil Proceeding No. 11 of 2012 by the Judge, Family Court, Berhampur. By the said judgment, the petition filed by the Appellant under Sec. 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1985 for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty has been dismissed having observed that the Respondent herein, herself is victim of cruelty perpetrated by the Appellant. As such, the Appellant should not be allowed to take advantage of his own matrimonial mis-conduct and to succeed in the action for dissolution of marriage. It has also been observed that the Appellant herein was engaged in the extra-marital affair with one lady. The Respondent adduced evidence, both oral and documentary to prove these allegations brought against the Appellant.

(3.) Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has stated that the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 20/7/1991 and was consummated happily for some period. In the wedlock, two sons namely Sankar Prasad Choudhury and Sameer Prasad Choudhury are born. Both of them have become major by this time and they are pursuing their vocation. The Appellant has suffered mental cruelty of extreme form as his name was connected with one lady, [whose name is withheld] by us. It has been stated that husband of that lady instituted a criminal action against the Appellant under Ss. 497/498/363/ 365/294/506 of the IPC [see the records of G.R. Case No. 354 of 2003]. However, the appellant was acquitted from the charge. It has been further stated that the Respondent had filed a complaint in the Berhampur Mahila Police Station against the Appellant alleging attempt to murder her as she was opposed to the said illicit relation. The said complaint had culminated in to G.R. Case No. 1368 of 2011 under Ss. 307/506/294/497/406/ 341/323/34 of the IPC, read with Sec. 4 and 6-A of the D.P. Act. As the Appellant was detained in the custody, he was placed under suspension. Thus, according to the appellant, he has suffered extreme cruelty for the above role of the Respondent.