MONIKA HOM ROY Vs. SMARAN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the wife under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court, that is, by the Additional Deputy Commissioner East Khasi Hills, Shillong in Divorce Misc. Case No. 10(T) of 1993 (Divorce Misc. Case No. 14 of 1991). The present respondent-husband filed an application for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty. The Written Statement was filed by the wife-defendant and thereafter, after filing of the written statement another application was filed to amend the plaint/petition and that was allowed. Accordingly an amended petition was filed. The issues were framed by the Trial Court. The following witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties: Samaran Horn Roy, PW-1,2.PW-2 C.K. Rudra, 3. PW-3, Soumen Sarkar 4. PW-4 Madhab Dutta, 5.PW-5 K.P. Roy, 6. PW-6, Ram Babu Rai. The evidence of the PWs was closed. On 18.3.94 2 PWs were examined and the case was adjourned for 7.4.94 the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant. On 7.4.94 time was taken on behalf of the defendant. The next date was on 21.4.94. On 21.4.94 no list of witness was furnished on behalf of the defendant and no witness was present on behalf of the defendant and as such the Trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant and fixed the matter for argument. On 30.4.94 none was present on behalf of the defendant and the case was adjourned till 9.5.94. The counsel for respondent on 9.5.94 was also absent and as such the argument was heard on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff and by the impugned judgment dated 16.3.94 allowed the application for divorce. Hence this appeal.

(2.) I have heard Shri H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri PC. Roy, teamed counsel for the respondent. Shri Choudhury makes two fold submissions

(3.) I take up the ground No. 2 first for decision. It is well established principle of law that a horse can be taken to the water but it can not be forced to drink water. Ample opportunity was given to the defendant to adduce evidence, but she did not avail that opportunity. As such I do not find this to be a tenable [ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. This contention shall stand rejected.