DHRUBAJYOTI BHARADWAJ Vs. MEENAKSHI BHARADWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. AC Borbora, learned senior counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent. By the order of 19/2/2021, the Court had arrived at its conclusion that as there was a refusal to accept notice by the respondent, therefore, under the law, notice was deemed to have been served. As none appears for the respondent in spite of such deemed service, we deem it appropriate to proceed with the matter in the absence of the respondent.

(2.) The appellant Dhrubajyoti Bharadwaj instituted T.S (M) Case No. 112/2016 under Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 (in short Act of 1955) in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Charaideo at Sonari. In paragraph-5 of the plaint, the appellant inter-alia averred that after one month of the marriage, the respondent started pressurizing the appellant to live separately from his parents, but such opposition on the part of the respondent was not acceptable to the appellant and he was of the view that he cannot live separately from his aged ailing parents. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, it is averred that as the petitioner was also required to stay in Dibrugarh in between for looking after his father's business, the respondent always kept on complaining that she does not want to stay along with the family members of the appellant. In the circumstance, when the appellant asked the respondent to stay with him at Dibrugarh, the respondent again refused to do so. In paragraph-9, it has been averred that the respondent after staying at her parental home had refused to come back to the appellant and also kept on raising her demands for separation from his family. In paragraph-12, it is the averment that the respondent and her family members kept on insisting that the appellant must break away from his own family if he wishes to have his wife and daughter to return to him, but it was unacceptable to the appellant and instead insisted upon the family members of the respondent to talk and sort out the difference of views. In paragraph-14, it is averred that on 18/1/2016, the appellant along with five other persons visited the respondent at her matrimonial home, but in spite of such effort, the respondent as well as the family members had not given the appropriate response to the efforts of the appellant. Further, the appellant also wrote a letter dtd. 24/2/2016 to the respondent, wherein he had requested her to come back along with her daughter. But in spite of receiving the said letter, there was no response from the respondent.

(3.) In the trial, the respondent other than submitting a written statement did not participate further in the proceeding. In the trial, the appellant as PW-1 had deposed on affidavit stating that in course of the marital life, the respondent used to visit her parental home at Sonari. After reaching there, she used to refuse to come back and kept on raising her demands for the appellant to live separately from his family and only after severe persuasion, the respondent used to come back. It was also deposed that on 30/11/2015 when the appellant went to the house of the respondent to bring her back, both the respondent as well as the family members refused to oblige. On 11/12/2015, when the mother of the appellant tried to contact the respondent or her mother to invite them for the ring ceremony of the younger sister of the appellant, again there was no response from the respondent. The appellant in his deposition also stated that on 8/1/2016 when he along with five other persons visited the house of the respondent to sort it out as to what had actually happened, the respondent as well as her family members did not respond in the appropriate manner. In course of his evidence, the appellant also exhibited the letter dtd. 24/2/2016, which is marked as Exhibit-1.