JILIMONI KALITA DAS Vs. PRANAB DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the appellant-wife as well as Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned counsel representing the respondent-husband.

(2.) This Matrimonial Appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 106.2014, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup at Guwahati in F.C. (Civil) No. 553/2010 whereby the petition filed by the respondent for dissolving his marriage with the appellant by a decree of divorce was allowed. In so far as permanent alimony is concerned, the respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3 lakh to the appellant within a time bound period. Being aggrieved, the appellant-wife has filed the present appeal.

(3.) Facts to be noticed, the respondent Sri Pranab Das filed petition under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of the marriage with the appellant. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 08.05.2008 as per Hindu rites and customs. It is alleged that immediately after their marriage, the appellant used to pick up quarrel over share in his property and also used to intimidate that she will end her life if she is not given a share in the property. This state of affairs continued and every night when the respondent reached home from work, the appellant picked up fights without any reason and used to abuse him by using slang languages. It is also alleged that in the forenoon of 29.07.2008 the appellant called the respondent over phone and made accusation that she had seen him having sex with the wife of one Md. Absher Ali. Again on 208.2008 she had abused him by using slang language as 'kukur', 'harami' and she had also rubbed off her vermilion mark from her forehead and also broke her bangles. On the issue of share in the property, the appellant also tried to kill herself on 14.07.2010 by pouring kerosene on herself. The incident was somehow averted by the respondent by saying that he would transfer all his property in her name. On 30.10.2010 the respondent did not find the appellant at home after returning from work. On her return when she was asked as to her whereabouts, she started abusing the respondent and had also expressed that she can no longer live with him. She threw the keys of the house at his face and left the matrimonial home. Since then, the appellant has been living with her parents. According to the respondent, such conduct on the part of the appellant amounted to inflicting cruelty on him. He expressed that there was no chance of reconciliation or for leading a conjugal life with the appellant.