SHAKTIPADA MAHATO Vs. CHANDANA MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant.

(2.) Respondent has not appeared despite valid service of notice. On 12.2.2018 it was brought to our notice that the respondent-wife is contesting the Criminal Revision No. 840 of 2012 before this court which has been filed by the husband aggrieved by the maintenance granted in a proceeding u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Single Judge by order dated 16.11.2017 had directed the parties to face mediation and settle the dispute amicably. The matter was adjourned with observation that if she is already appearing through her counsel in criminal revision it would be proper that she enters appearance in the present appeal. Learned Counsel Mr. D.K.Karmkar who is representing the wife in the said criminal revision also informed this Court on 18.4.2018 that the counsel representing the respondent-wife in the learned court below was communicated for her appearance in the present appeal. However, even though, the matter was adjourned on 20.6.2018, respondent did not appear. It therefore appears that she is not interested in contesting the case.

(3.) Petitioner pleaded that marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals on 5.5.2004 . They lived together and a girl child was born out of the wedlock on 14.August, 2005. Respondent however always used to insist upon him to live separately from his family and to live as Gharjamai in her parents' house which was unacceptable for the petitioner. This caused annoyance in the mind of the respondent and she started misbehaving with the petitioner and his family members. She abused the petitioner and his family members and threatened to lodge false cases. She was taken back by her uncle with an assurance to return within a fortnight to ensure that the marital issues were resolved but she did not come back. Petitioner made several attempts to bring her back but in vain. He sent a legal notice on 21.12.2005 asking her to return to the matrimonial home to lead a happy conjugal life but she did not accede. Petitioner lodged a matrimonial suit No. 130 of 2006 for restitution of conjugal rights on 4th July, 2006. The Suit was however dismissed on 20.1.2009. He further stated that respondent and her daughter have been granted maintenance in Misc. Case No. 07 of 2007.He alleged cruelty at the hands of the respondent. She had also deserted him since 5.11.2005. Despite his best efforts, restitution of conjugal rights could not take place. Respondent had withdrawn from the society and was unwilling to resume conjugal life. Finding no alternative, the instant suit was filed.