CHANDAN KUMAR PAUL Vs. KALPANA KUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 19.06.2001, passed by the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar, in T.S. (D) No. 22/92. The Appellant, as Petitioner, instituted a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent/opposite party, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned District Judge, dismissed the suit for divorce. Hence, the Appellant-Petitioner has carried the appeal to this Court.

(2.) The Appellant-Petitioner's case, in short, may be stated as follows:

(3.) Contesting the claim, made by the Appellant-Petitioner and refuting the allegations made against her, the Respondent/opposite party filed a written statement. In her written statement, the Respondent/opposite party, while denying all the allegations made against her, submitted that she never treated her husband and the members of his family with cruelty and that she never voluntarily deserted the Appellant-Petitioner. Regarding the allegation of suppression of age, the Respondent/opposite party contended that her marriage being a socially arranged marriage, nothing was suppressed from the Appellant-Petitioner and the members of his family and as such the allegation of suppressing the age was baseless. She further contended, in her written statement, that after the marriage, the Appellant-Petitioner, his mother, his brother and sister, demanded an amount of Rs. 15.000/- for the purpose of purchasing a Scooter, from the father of the Respondent/opposite party and due to inability of the Respondent/opposite party's father to pay the said amount, the Appellant-Petitioner and the members of his family used to assault and abuse her in foul language, causing misery and anxiety to her. It was also contended that she was deprived from proper food and clothings and that the Appellant-Petitioner also made an attempt to kill her. It was also alleged, that the Appellant-Petitioner made an attempt to aborl the pregnancy of the Respondent/opposite party but she somehow managed to avoid the said attempt. According to the Respondent/opposite party, being unable to bear the torture, she was compelled to take shelter in the house of her parents with effect from 20.10.1990. Denying the allegation brought against her chastity, the Respondent/opposite party stated, in her written statement, that at the time of leaving the marital home, she was pregnant for more than four months. She also denied the allegation of desertion and contended that even after the birth of her said child, she met the Appellant-Petitioner when the latter was undergoing treatment in connection with a Scooter accident and on being requested by the Appellant-Petitioner, she went to the marital home along with her child for the purpose of leading a marital life with the Appellant-Petitioner, but the other family members of the Appellant-Petitioner refused to accept her, for which the Appellant-Petitioner had sent her to a rented house at Gosaigaon with an assurance that he would be joining her soon, but the Appellant-Petitioner failed to keep his words. The Respondent/opposite party, in her written statement, contended, that she was all along ready to live with the Appellant-Petitioner and that she was not willing to snap the relationship with the latter.