TULSI MAHTO Vs. RENU DEVI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F.A. No. 71 of 2013 This First Appeal has been preferred by the original applicant of Title Matrimonial Suit No.118 of 2007. Appellant is the husband who had preferred an application under Sec. 13(1)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of the marriage between this appellant and the respondent-wife mainly on the ground of desertion by wife and her illicit relationship with several persons who were residing in the nearby house of the appellant.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submitted that the marriage between this appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 31st July, 1987 and as this appellant was serving at Howrah in Railway, the respondent was also staying with him at Howrah (West Bengal) and they continued to stay together for approximately 20 long years, but, thereafter, she developed illicit relationship with several persons who were residing in the neighbourhood and when this fact was brought to her notice, she left the house of this appellant. Thus, the desertion was by the respondent-wife since there were illicit relationships of this respondent with several persons who were residing nearby the house of this appellant. Three witnesses have been examined by the appellant and they all supported these two facts. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro while dismissing the application preferred by this appellant. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision rendered by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of K. Srinivas Rao Vs. D.A. Deepa, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 266 and has submitted that if this separation has created an unbridgeable distance, or, has irretrievably broken down, or, if the marriage is beyond repair on account of bitterness, or, where the marriage is dead for all the purposes, then it cannot be revived by the Court's verdict and, hence, the judgment and order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro, deserves to be quashed and set aside and the divorce application preferred by this appellant may kindly be allowed.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent submitted that for 20 long years the respondent has resided with this appellant at Howrah after the marriage between the two. As the appellant was staying at Howrah and as he was serving in Railway, there was no reason for the respondent to leave the house of this appellant, but, as this appellant had developed illicit relationship with his Bhabhi, she was brought at Village Kasmar, District Bokaro, and the appellant also left Village Kasmar (Bokaro) leaving the respondent at the village. This phenomenon has taken place and she stayed at Village Kasmar (Bokaro) for some times and, thereafter, as the husband had gone back to Howrah leaving the respondent at Village Kasmar (Bokaro), she had no option but to return to her parental house. Thus, there is no desertion by the respondent, rather, the appellant has deserted this respondent. These facts have been proved from the evidence on record. Moreover, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that this appellant has already solemnized one more marriage with another lady during the subsistence of the first marriage with the respondent. This evidence has also been given by the witnesses of the respondent. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the appellant cannot be paid premium for desertion of his wife. In fact, this appellant has deserted the respondent and, therefore, the ratio of the decision cited by the counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the allegations levelled by the appellant have not been proved by any of the witnesses. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro while dismissing the application preferred by this appellant and no error has been committed by the learned trial Court in dismissing the said application and, hence, this First Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.