RANJIT KUMAR DAS Vs. MALATI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Court's Act, 1984, appellant husband Ranjit Kumar Das has challenged the impugned order dated 20/07/2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, No. II, Kamrup (Metro), dismissing his suit for dissolution of marriage filed against his respondent wife Malati Das.

(2.) According to the appellant he was married respondent in the year 1974 and as a result of their wedlock, a son was born in the year 1978. But as both the parties used to work, their son had to be brought up by maids which was the apple of discord between the parties at the initial stage. Gradually their relationship soured due to suspicious and aggressive nature of respondent and they started to live separately though under the same roof since 1989 in an Assam type house by maintaining separate bedroom, kitchen etc. the appellant used to do all the household chores like marketing, cooking etc. and thus they continued to live till 1996. In 1997 they shifted to a newly constructed multi-storied house where the appellant has been staying in the second floor whereas respondent has been staying in the first floor of that house. Their son has also been staying with respondent and the appellant even bore all the expenses of his (son's) marriage. But, respondent never looked after the appellant even during his worst health days for which he had to hire the services of a maid servant. Therefore, he stated that their marriage has been broken down and there being no chance of reunion, he is entitled to a decree of divorce and as such prayed for a decree of divorce.

(3.) The respondent contested the suit by filing written statement denying the allegations levelled against her and on the contrary alleged that the appellant always used to treat her with cruelty and there was no negligence on her part either in upbringing their son or taking care o the appellant. The appellant purchased the plot of land where the multi-storied building is now standing, with the money of respondent contributed upto 60% of the price. But he did not register her name in the land records on a false pretext that there cannot be two registered owners and respondent also believed him bonafide. At the time of marriage of their son to, the parents of the bride bore 60% of the total expenses whereas the appellant and respondent together bore 40% of the expenses as mutually settled at the time of engagement of the marriage. As a matter of fact, the appellant separated himself from respondent and family so that he could maintain illicit relationship with the maid he kept, who was arrested /detained on charge of murder and it is the maid, who is trying to usurp the properties of the appellant by fair means or foul. Respondent stated that if the marriage is dissolved after such a long time of their marriage, she would suffer immensely and thus prayed for dismissal of the suit.