LAWS(GAU)-2007-9-23

SHANKAR ROUTH Vs. SOMA DUTTA

Decided On September 27, 2007
SHANKAR ROUTH Appellant
V/S
SOMA DUTTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. T. J. Mahanta and Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. C. Biswas and Mr. P. J. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THIS matrimonial appeal has been directed against the Judgment and order dated 14. 12. 2004 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati in F. C. (Civil) No. 147/2003, whereby the prayer of the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce against his wife, the respondent herein by filing a petition under Sections 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, 'the Act') was rejected holding that both the grounds of 'desertion' and 'cruelty' so set out by the appellant for divorce against his wife, the respondent could not be proved by the petitioner/appellant herein.

(3.) IMPUGNING the Judgment and Order and also in support of the appeal, Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge misread and misconstrued the entire material evidence on record so adduced by the petitioner/appellant. In support of his case for divorce on the ground of 'dissertion and Cruelty' against the wife, it is further contended that the learned Judge ought not to have given weightage to the evidence adduced by the respondent. According to him, the respondent/wife of the petitioner/appellant admittedly left the house on 10. 4. 2000 after staying hardly for 4 months as their marriage was solemnized on 10. 12. 1999 and since then both the parties have been living separately. Even, there has been no occasion for their stay altogether during this long span of 7 years on her withdrawal from the society of her husband on 10. 4. 2000 for fulfilling the obligation of a marital tie. Under such factual premises, relying on the testimony of PW. 1, the appellant himself and other witnesses i. e. , P. W. 2, Sanjib Pal Mazumdar and PW 3, Subhas Karmakar and even of DW 1, the respondent/wife, he has argued that it is a fit case to hold that marriage between the parties has broken down irretrievably and the appellant is entitled to get a decree of divorce for dissolution of the marriage.