BULBULI BISWAS Vs. KHAGEN BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree 10.03.2008, passed by the learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in T.S. (Divorce) Case No. 18 of 2004. The suit filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage with appellant was decreed in his favour. We have heard Mr. P. Sundi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The marriage of the appellant with respondent was not in dispute. It was also admitted that a male child was born out of the wedlock on 06.09.1985. It was the case of the respondent, who filed suit for divorce that the wife was taken to her parental house before the birth of their child in the month of July, 1985. Since then, the wife did not return to her matrimonial home. The petitioner-respondent requested the wife on several occasions to come back for conjugal life but the wife refused to resume the conjugal life. The respondent-husband was paying Rs. 800/- per month as maintenance allowance to the appellant and her son in compliance of the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was the further case of the respondent that the appellant joined in Army School and the son has attained the age of majority. He prayed for decree of divorce on the ground of desertion.

(3.) The appellant herein contested the proceeding by filing written statement alleging inter alia that it was the respondent-husband, who drove her out with her minor child from her matrimonial house, stating that he would solemnize second marriage. She denied that she has been employed anywhere. According to her, she has no source of income. She alleged that the respondent-husband used to pick up quarrel without any rhyme and reason and that she was subjected to serious physical assault by her husband. In the year 1989, the respondent kicked her out with her minor child and stated that he did not need her any more. Left with no other alternative, she took shelter in the house of her brother and old aged mother. She denied that the petitioner ever approached her or requested her to come back. On the contrary, she, on several occasions, requested her husband to cohabit with her but he did not allow her entering into his house. The further case of the appellant was that it was the husband, who in the month of January, 2001, solemnized second marriage with another woman and he has been residing with his second wife.