UPENDRA PRASAD SINHA Vs. MANJU SINHA @ SANYUKTA SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the plaintiff -appellant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.3.1993 and 12.3.1993 respectively passed in Matrimonial Title Suit. No. 67 of 1989 (T.R. No. 2 of 1992) whereby and whereunder the learned VIth Additional Judicial Commissioner. Ranchi dismissed the suit.

(2.) THE fact of the case he in narrow compass. Appellant who is plaintiff in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 67 of 1989 filed a Matrimonial Title Suit No. 67 of 1989 against the respondent wife for a decree of divorce under Sec.13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the ground of desertion, adultery and cruelty alleging therein that he was married with the respondent No. 1 -wife in the year 1963 according to the Hindu rites at the residence of respondent in village Nayangaon. P.S. Porbatta, Dis -trict - Khagaria. Thereafter out of the wedlock, a son, namely, Chulbullu was born to them in the year 1966. Immediately after a month or two of solemnization of the marriage, the respondent No. 1 started cruel behaviour with the petitioner -appellant, as the respondent No. 1 was illiterate and 'arrogant lady and she leaked good manner. She is said to have abused the petitioner - appellant without any reasonable cause in presence of his guest, relatives and friends. She even assaulted the petitioner 'scousin 'swife and other elderly members of his family and thereby humiliated the petitioner -appellant. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 stayed in her matrimonial house for a couple of years and thereafter went to her father 'splace without the consent of the petitioner -appellant and without any reasonable cause. Thereafter the petitioner alone came to Ranch! to work in H.E.C. The petitioner -appellant came to know from reliable sources that respondent No. 1 was having illicit relationship with the respondent No. 2. In February 1979 respondent No. 1 left the petitioner -appellant 'shouse without any reasonable cause and without the consent of the petitioner and went with respondent No. 2 to live in other person 'shouse. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 did not return to live with the petitioner -appellant thereafter and, thus, she has deserted the petitioner -appellant. It is further alleged that the respondent No. 1 is living as concubine of respondent No. 2 Radhey Shyam Singh.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties. learned Court below framed following issues for determination in the suit.