MUNI DEVI Vs. KAMESHWAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents despite due service of notice upon them.

(2.) THE appeal questions the legality of the judgment and decree dated 17. 5. 2006 and 17. 5. 2006 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Divorce Suit No. 8 (T) of 1996 decreeing the dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the respondent and the payment of maintenance allowances of Rs. 2000/- per month by the respondent No. 1 to the appellant herein with effect from 1. 6. 2006 till her death or the marriage of the girl child, whichever was later.

(3.) THE facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant is the wife of the respondent No. 1 and that their marriage was solemnized on 20. 2. 1989 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at Goralane, Bihari Colony, Shillong. Two children were born to them on 30. 4. 1994 and on 27. 2. 1997. The first born child is a boy, who is presently in the custody of the appellant. According to the respondent, the relationship between him and the appellant was initially cordial, but since mid-1995, the respondent No. 2 started visiting the appellant in a suspicious manner and when the respondent made complaint against her conduct, she became rude and offensive to him. The respondent alleged that the appellant had an illicit relationship with the respondent No. 2 and pointed out the same to the appellant, which infuriated her and ultimately prompted her to leave her matrimonial home in July 1996 and took away along with her five tolas of gold and Rs. 2,500/- in cash. This led the respondent to institute the suit for divorce on the ground of adultery. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner entertained the suit and issued notice upon the appellant and the co-respondent. The appellant and the co-respondent contested the suit. In the course of trial, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent, whereas an equal number of witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant including the co-respondent. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner decreed the suit by the impugned judgment.