ANN SARKAR Vs. ANIL SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree nisi dt. 11-11-87 passed by the District Judge, Dibrugarh under S.10, Divorce Act, 1869, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', has come up for confirmation in this reference under S.17 of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner sued for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent on ground of adultery coupled with cruelty. Examining herself as witness 1, she deposed that she was married to the respondent Anil Sarkar on 6-12-79 at Dibrugarh Christ Church as both of them were Christians. Ext.1 was their marriage certificate. After marriage they lived conjugal life at Moran but had no issue. Since about 3 months after the marriage the respondent showed indifference towards her, at the same time having affairs with other women and when her protests proved to be useless she went to her mother's house. When her husband used to be with other women and when she objected her husband threw things at her and behaved very, rudely in presence of her daughter by her previous marriage. The respondent also had a son by his previous marriage. It appears the previous marriages of both the petitioner and the respondent ended in divorce. She apprehended that she could not live with her husband safely and she left respondent's company in April, 1981 and went to he mother at Pangeri whereafter the respondent never enquired about her. She further depose that the respondent was living an adulterous life and hence she prayed for dissolution of marriage without claiming any alimony from him.

(3.) The respondent appeared in Court and filed petition No. 585/87 giving his consent to the dissolution of marriage stating that they have been living separately since 1981 and have not been able to live together. He however did not appear or examine himself in Court and also did not file written statement and hence the suit proceeded ex parte. The respondent, however, made no comments on the allegation of cruelty and stated that the marriage between them had broken down irretrievably and that continuation of marriage tie would only add misery to the respondent.