RUBUL BARUAH Vs. RUPTRISHNA DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Sarkar and Ms. S. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N.N. Jha, Mr. M.K. Raut and Ms. M. Sahoo, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant is before this Court assailing the judgment dated 25.7.2017 passed by the District Judge, Jorhat in (Marriage) Title Suit No.34 of 2015. The appellant herein is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was registered on 26.12.2012 and a social marriage had been held on 11.03.2012. They have no issue out of the marriage. However, certain marital discord developed between the parties and, as such, they were residing separately after an incident that is said to have taken place on 26.7.2013. In that background, the respondent herein filed the petition under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage. The allegation was that the appellant herein had inflicted mental cruelty on the respondent and, in that regard, the allegation was that immediately after one week of their marriage, the appellant started to misbehave, ill treat and harass the respondent without any rhyme or reason. The sister of the appellant also interfered in their marital life, but the appellant did not care for the feeling of the respondent, instead, on listening to his sister would rebuke the respondent using slang language. She alleged that she did not get respect and care from her husband. When this was the position, on 26.7.2013, while they were returning back from Tinsukia to Numaligarh, the appellant suddenly stopped the car on the way at Dergaon town at 7.00 P.M., left her all alone and went away. Hence, the respondent being unable to live with the appellant due to such cruel acts, had instituted the petition.

(3.) The appellant herein appeared in the proceeding and filed a written statement whereby all the allegations were denied. It was contended that the sister of the appellant is a married lady who was residing with her husband and children and, as such, there was no interference. It was further contended that though he wanted a child, the same was not possible and the gynaecological problem of the respondent was attended to and, in that circumstance, the appellant contends that he had not inflicted cruelty, but had taken care of her.