SUSHIL KUMAR BERI Vs. JYOTI RANI BERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a an appeal U/S 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 preferred by the husband against judgment and decree dated 24.2.97 as passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup, Guwahati in Case No. F.C. (Civil) 135 of 1995 thereby dissolving the marriage between the parties and granting a decree of divorce, with permanent aliimony of Rs.2,00,000/- to the wife petitioner (respondent herein) on the ground of cruelty.

(2.) Before proceeding any further, it would be pertinent to note that this appeal as filed was barred by time there was delay of 70 days as filing the same. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 8 8.97 stayed the operation of the decree conditional upon the appellant depositing Rs.60,000/- within a period of one month from the date of the order. The amount so deposited was allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent wife. Instead of complying with the order the appellant husband filed an application on 1.9.97 praying for modification of the order dated 8.8.97, seeking deletion of the direction, allowing the wife respondent to withdraw the amount of Rs.60,000/- which was not deposited nor has been deposited so far. The ground assigned for modification was that the respondent wife had her own sources of income,- the minors had become major, and the impugned judgment was prima facie not tenable in law. It was this application registered as 239 of 1997 which was listed before us since almost the whole gamut of arguments both legal . factual, was being advanced by the learned ounsel for the appellant, it was suggested if the parties were agreeable to arguments on merits, to which they expressed their willingness, accordingly, the matter was taken up for hearing on merits although learned counsel for the respondent did urge that the appellant had lost his right of hearing on account of non-compliance of the Courts order dated 8.8.97. During the course of hearing appellant's counsel submitted that there was no effective attempt at reconciliation between the parties, we therefore directed the parties to remain present in person so that even at this appellate stage, an attempt at reconciliation could be made but the same could not materialise. We, therefore, proceeded with the hearing of the appeal on merits despite the handles of limitation and non-com-, pliance of the court's order dated 8.8.97, because learned counsel appearing for the respondent wife conceded to such hearing.

(3.) This case with slight difference aptly reminds one of a well known scene from Shakespeare's Writer's Tale, the arrangement of Hermione who was charged with adultery, a difference life is not a dream over the fire side, it is governed by Rules of realism and not of romance.