SUDHIRLATA DEI Vs. KRUSHNA CHANDRA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 19 read with Section 25 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short 'Act 1984) and Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'Act 1955) has been filed as against the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2002 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No.15 of 1991.

(2.) RESPONDENT is the husband and he filed the application under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 praying for a decree of divorce against the appellant, who is the wife. That was registered as Civil Proceeding No.15 of 1991. On 19.07.1997 learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack delivered the judgment and granted decree for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act, 1955. Respondent challenged that judgment in Civil Appeal No.28 of 1997. A Division Bench of this Court on 18.7.2002 disposed of that Civil Appeal and remanded the case for disposal of the application under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 on the basis of the evidence already available on record and observed that the trial Court did not properly peruse and appreciate the evidence on record with respect to the prayer for decree of divorce prayed for by the respondent. On re -appreciation of the evidence and after hearing the parties,learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on 08.11.2002 delivered the impugned judgment granting a decree of divorce.

(3.) BOTH the parties led oral and documentary evidence. On assessment of the documentary evidence - Exts.1 to 6 and the evidence of the respondent (P.W.3), learned Judge, Family Court found that in fact the appellant brought allegations of immoral association of the husband with Sunjukta Das and in that connection got her husband suspended from service and also got him prosecuted in a G.R. case and that amounts to mental cruelty. In the said context, referring to the evidence of the other witnesses examined on behalf of the husband and particularly the evidence of the daughter examined as P.W.5 together with the evidence of the two sons examined as O.P.Ws.7 and 8, learned Judge, Family Court,Cuttack found that it is not proved on record that respondent has maintained any illegal or extra -marital relationship with Sanjukta Das. Since such an allegation followed with actions by the wife -appellant resulted in harassment and torture to the husband, that constitute cruelty under Section 13 (i -a) of the Act, 1955 and accordingly, the husband is entitled to a decree of divorce. In the context of oral evidence adduced from both the sides, learned Judge, Family Court found that evidence in support of allegation of Sanjukta Das having relationship with the respondent is not acceptable in view of the evidence of P.W.5 and O.P.Ws.7 and 8, who are the daughter and sons of the parties. Accordingly, learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack granted the impugned decree of divorce. The Court below considered the fact that after her marriage it is the respondent who facilitated appellant to undergo C.T. training and to serve as a teacher and that she is living in a house stands recorded in her name and drawing salary as a school teacher and the son living with her has become major and, therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay either permanent alimony or maintenance to the wife and the youngest son.