MALZA D SHIRA Vs. ARCHANA MARAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears for the Respondents.

(2.) The petitioner-husband Shri Malza D. Shira has filed a suit for Divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short "the Act"). It is alleged that Smt. Archana Marak, the wife of the petitioner and Simon Sangrna, had adulterous relation. His wife has deserted him without any justifiable cause. The respondent No. 1, the wife has entered appearance and filed her written statement denying the allegations of adultery and desertion. On the contrary, she has alleged adultery, cruelty and desertion on the part of the husband. She further prayed for return of all the matrimonial properties and maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month for herself and minor children. The Court below after recording evidence of the parties have reached to the conclusion that both the parties have failed to prove the adultery alleged by them against each other. However, the wife has successfully proved the cruelty and desertion against the petitioner-husband and consequent thereof, the decree of divorce was passed. The Court further directed custody of the minor children with the mother Smt. Archana Marak. While passing the decree of divorce, the Court gave further direction regarding the property shown in Annexure-I of the written statement of the Respondent No. 1 holding to be property of the wife being matrimonial property. The Court has directed that on any matrimonial property, the husband has no right, title and interest as per the customary law applicable to the Garos. Therefore, the property shown in Annexure-I is to be returned back by the petitioner-husband to the wife i.e. the Respondent No. 1 within a period of one month.

(3.) When the matter came up for confirmation of decree of divorce as required under Section 17 of the Act, Miss A. Paul, the counsel for the petitioner-husband submitted that the decree for divorce by the Court on the basis of the allegations made in the written statement could not have been granted. Besides this, the Court has no jurisdiction or authority to adjudicate upon the title to the property or give directions of return of that property to the wife holding it that the wife has right, title and interest over the property as per customary law applicable to the Garos while granting the decree for divorce under the Act 1869.