DITUMONI HAZARIKA Vs. SMTI RIMJIM BHATTACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is before this Court assailing the judgment dated 4.11.2016 passed by the District Judge, Lakhimpur in T.S. (Divorce) No. 56/2014. The appellant herein is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 1.11.2013 by having it registered in the office of the Marriage Officer under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Due to certain differences arising between the parties in the married life, they were residing separately and the respondent herein filed a petition under Section 27(d) of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage and payment of permanent alimony. The Court below through the impugned judgment, has allowed the petition dissolving the marriage between the parties and has further directed payment of Rs. 3 Lakhs as permanent alimony. It is in that light, the appellant is before this Court in this appeal assailing the judgment.

(2.) The case of the appellant while assailing the judgment is that the Court below has not appropriately considered the matter, more particularly, the evidence as tendered by the parties. It is contended that the allegation of cruelty has not been established and in such circumstance, the decree of divorce as granted would not be justified. The contention to that effect is that the respondent herein had filed a complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and in the said proceedings the appellant has been acquitted and, therefore, the case of cruelty sought to be put forth in the petition filed under Section 27 of the Act would not be justified. It is also the contention that the Court below without adverting to the fact situation has ordered payment of alimony which is not justified.

(3.) The contention on behalf of the respondent in an attempt to sustain the judgment passed by the Court below is that the averment as contained in the petition before the Court below is detailed and specific. It is pointed out that despite such specific allegation being made, the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant herein does not advert to the allegation so as to deny the same in specific terms. Hence, it is contended that in terms of the provisions as contained in Order VIII Rule 3 and 4 CPC, the allegations should be deemed to have been admitted and in that light, no further consideration was required by the Court below except to accept the case of the respondent herein. It is further contended that even otherwise the respondent herein had tendered evidence on her behalf and also examined the witnesses. Hence, when the Court below has referred to the evidence available on record and has arrived at the conclusion, the impugned judgment does not call for interference.