SANJEEB DEEPAK SAHU Vs. SUKANTI MALA BAGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been preferred by the husband. He says the parties are Christian and their marriage was solemnized on 6/2/2007 in J.E.L. Church, Koraput by the Reverend. According to him respondent resided inRs. the matrimonial home for 45 days only, during which time she frequently visited her parent's house. In his petition he said he had earlier filed petition under Sec. 10 of Divorce Act, 1869, dismissed on 10/1/2014. On 14/4/2014 respondent along with her father, her advocate and others had formed unlawful assembly in front of residence of his mother. Complaint was lodged before the police, registered as F.I.R. on that day under Sec. 147, 148, 454, 294, 506 and 149 in Indian Penal Code, 1860. Police arrested, inter alia, respondent and she along with others were forwarded to the Court in G.R. Case no.213 of 2014. On 20/1/2017 petitioner happened to meet husband of his sisterin-law. From him he came to know of respondent's promiscuity. Inter alia, on such pleadings appellant had filed for divorce.

(2.) Mr. Rout, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant but none appears on behalf of respondent. Coordinate Bench on order dtd. 17/3/2023 recorded that notice had been delivered to respondent but there is no representation. This was reiterated by said coordinate Bench on 17/4/2023. Reproduced below are paragraphs 3 to 5 from said order dtd. 17/4/2023.

(3.) Mr. Rout submits, the Family Court by impugned judgment dtd. 3/8/2022, dismissed his client's petition for dissolution of the marriage on saying, it was barred by res judicata. The marriage had broken down with no reconciliation. His client should not be tied to respondent just because his earlier attempt to obtain divorce had resulted in dismissal order dtd. 10/1/2014. Ground is continuing cruelty. He seeks interference in appeal, for impugned judgment to be reversed.