MINATI HAZARIKA Vs. BIDYADHAR HAZARIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant(wife). Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (husband).

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 28/9/2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaon, Assam, in M.(D) Case No.46/2015, granting a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent based on a petition filed by him on 31/7/2015 under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(3.) The case of the respondent, as projected in the plaint, is that the appellant had got married to the respondent on 19/3/1995 as per the Hindu rites whereafter, they had been peacefully living as husband and wife. From their wedlock, four children were born. However, seven years after the marriage, the appellant (wife) started visiting the house of her parents at the instigation of her brother (respondent No.2 in the plaint) and started staying there for weeks without the approval of the respondent. According to the respondent, the brother of the appellant used to very often visit their house and his wife used to go with him to the house of her parents. Despite the objection as regards the frequent visit of the wife to her parents house and his advise not to do so, his wife did not pay any heed to such advice. On 17/7/2012, when the petitioner/respondent was posted at Delhi as the Body Guard of the Chief Minister, he came to know that the appellant had filed M.R. Case No.199/2012 which ultimately culminated in a settlement reached in the Lok Adalat whereby the respondent had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4500.00 per month to his wife as maintenance. The above conduct of the appellant, according to the respondent, are the instances of cruelty. It has also been alleged in the plaint that the appellant had left her matrimonial home on 27/2/2015 along with one son and a daughter but did not return despite several requests made by the respondent to such effect. Based on such pleadings, the respondent had filed the suit seeking a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.