SUCHETA PRADHAN Vs. SANKARSANA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife -Respondent has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 4.10.2002 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 93 of 1994 allowing the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

(2.) THE present Appellant was the Respondent and the Respondent was the petitioner before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. The parties are Hindus and governed under the Mitakhar School of Law. They entered into a wedlock on 5.5.1977 according to Hindu rites and their Caste custom and lived in the house of the petitioner at Haridapal as husband and wife. During the time of marriage the petitioner was serving as a clerk and subsequently he joined as a Lecturer in Commerce in Rajendra College, Bolangir on ad hoc basis. Subsequently his service was confirmed and he served as a Lecturer in different Colleges. As per the case of the petitioner while he was coming to his native place during holidays, very often the Respondent on some plea or the other, was keeping away from the matrimonial home. She developed a peculiar sexual behavior towards the petitioner and did not cooperate him in sexual relationship. She willfully neglected to look after the household affairs and treated the petitioner with cruelty. So, ultimately in the year 1980 both of them decided not to continue the conjugal life any further. On 30.1.1980 the Respondent swore an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Jajpur stating that her relationship with the petitioner as wife ceased to exist and since then they lived separately and there was no sexual relationship between them. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Respondent filed a false complaint case bearing I.C.C. No. 368 of 1983 against him, his mother and some others on false allegation that the petitioner married for the second time, while his first marriage was in subsistence and on some other allegations, wherein all of them got acquitted. During pendency of this case, there was an understanding that the Respondent would file a divorce suit against the petitioner, and the latter would not resist it. It was agreed upon that the petitioner would pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/ - as permanent alimony to the Respondent, but as the petitioner had no ready cash it was further agreed upon that he would execute a security bond in respect of 1/3rd of his interest in the joint family property for payment of Rs. 10,000/ -towards permanent alimony. Instead of a bond the Respondent fraudulently managed to get a gift deed executed in her favour and did not file the suit. Subsequently, when she tried to alienate the so -called gifted property, the petitioner cancelled the deed on 25.4.1994. Ultimately, he filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack bearing Civil Proceeding No.93 of 1994 for dissolution of the marriage and a decree of divorce on the aforesaid grounds.

(3.) TO prove their respective cases, while the petitioner examined four witnesses including himself as P.W. 1, the Respondent examined five witnesses including herself as O.P.W -1. After assessing the evidence on record, the Learned Judge, Family Court allowed the Civil Proceeding and dissolved the marriage holding that the Respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty, deserted him with an intention to put an end to their marital life and that the marriage between the parties had been broken down irretrievably. Being aggrieved with this judgment of the Judge, Family Court, the wife Respondent (here -in -after referred to as' Appellant') has preferred this appeal.