KAJAL DAS Vs. JULI MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal, against the judgment and decree, dated 14-06- 2007, passed, in Title Suit (Divorce) Case No. 11 of 2003, by the learned District Judge, Tinsukia, refusing to dissolve the marriage between the appellant and the respondent.

(2.) The case of the appellant may, in brief, be described thus: The parties to the suit solemnized their marriage, on 03-03-1998, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, at the office of the Registrar of Marriages, Tinsukia. About two months after the marriage, i.e., on 24-05-1998, the respondent came to the house of the appellant without the consent of her mother and started leading her conjugal life with the appellant. However, on that very day, the respondent's mother came to the house of the appellant and she took away from the respondent her ear-rings and chain, which the respondent had brought from her matrimonial house. The mother of the respondent even rubbed the vermillion from the head of the respondent. At the time of her marriage with the appellant, the respondent was a student of Part-I degree course. The appellant allowed the respondent to continue with her studies and the appellant's mother got the respondent admitted in BA Part-II course in Women's College, Tinsukia, and provided facilities to the respondent to attend her classes regularly. A few months after her marriage, the respondent started behaving in an abnormal manner and she did not show even minimum respect and regard to the elder members of the appellant's family and that she used to move out the house of the appellant as and when she wanted. The respondent, eventually, left, on 16-02-1999, the appellant's house in the absence of the appellant and refused to come back to her matrimonial home despite many persuasive attempts made by the appellant and his well-wishers. In order to subject the appellant and his family to mental cruelty and harassment, the respondent lodged a First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), at Doom Dooma Police Station, alleging to the effect, inter alia, that on 16-02-1999, the respondent had become unconscious, but neither the appellant nor any of the members of his family took her to any doctor and the respondent had to be brought back to her matrimonial house by her parents and, then, the respondent underwent medical treatment. This apart, the respondent also alleged, in the FIR, that she had asked the appellant to return her certificates, but the appellant refused to do so and threatened her with dire consequences. Based on the said FIR, Doom Dooma Police Station Case No. 275 of 1999, under Section 498 (A)/506 IPC, was registered against the appellant and his mother and both of them were tried by the criminal Court. While the mother of the appellant was acquitted by the learned trial Court, the appellant was convicted. As against his conviction, the appellant preferred an appeal, which gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 26(2)/2002 and it was in the appeal that the appellant was acquitted. As a result of lodging of the said case, the appellant and his mother suffered financial loss and also mental torture and their reputation in the society was damaged. There is no scope of reunion between the parties concerned, because of the cruelty with which the respondent has treated the appellant and his family. This apart, the appellant is frightened to live with the respondent.

(3.) The respondent filed her written statement resisting the application for divorce, her case being, briefly stated, thus: Though their marriage was solemnized on 03-03-1998, the appellant did not take the respondent to his house due to some internal family problems and it was the respondent, who went to the house of the appellant and started leading conjugal life with him, but the respondent was subjected to mental torture by the appellant and his mother. As the respondent was unable to bear the cruelty heaped on her, she fainted on 16-02-1999. However, the appellant did not take care of the respondent and did not even call a doctor, whereupon the respondent's parents took the respondent for her medical treatment. The respondent was ever willing to live with the appellant. In fact, the appellant and the respondent had stayed, at Hotel Nataraj, as husband and wife and at that time, the respondent was of the view that there would be reunion, but her hope came to be frustrated by institution of the divorce suit.