DILIP DAS Vs. SMT. KANCHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.6.2002 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, in connection with Matrimonial suit No. 37/21 of 1994 -2001 whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the appellant under section 13(1)(1a) and (1b) and section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was dismissed. Facts of the case, in brief, as appearing from the case record is that on 21.1.1989, marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs and it was also consummated. The respondent conceived and she gave birth to a male child on 19.10.1989 at her parents' house. The appellant had borne all pre natal expenses and had also attended chhathi and other ceremonies which were held after the birth of the child. He had also requested the respondent to join her matrimonial home, but she did not agree and remained at her parents house on one ground or the other. Lastly, a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed for maintenance in which the appellant appeared and made protest. He had requested the respondent to live with him but she refused and such refusal by the respondent led to desertion without any cogent ground. Besides the above, the appellant has also made out a ground that the behaviour of the respondent was always cruel to her in laws and also with the appellant. She was unwilling to discharge domestic work and was always rude in her behaviour. Since the respondent had withdrawn herself from association of the appellant without cogent reason and she was also cruel to the appellant and her in laws, the appellant filed petition seeking dissolution of the marriage and decree of divorce before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur.

(2.) IT is contended that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur, has committed gross error by relying on the evidence adduced. There was admission on the part of the respondent that she had been living with her parents for more than two years preceding to the date of presentation of the application for grant of decree of divorce. Refusal on the part of the respondent to live with the appellant was also apparent from the materials available on the record and evidence. Since the finding of the Principal Judge, Family Court is erroneous, illegal and whimsical, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned court below is liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have gone through the impugned judgment and order from which it appears that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has discussed all the issues on the basis of the evidence available before him. The appellant has failed to adduce consistent evidence on the point of cruelty and so far as the ground of desertion is concerned, the appellant himself has stated that after filing of the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C., he was unwilling to keep the respondent with him.