DULAL MANDAL Vs. MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2012 and 1.12.2012 respectively passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum. Jamshedpur in Matrimonial Suit No. 105 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the learned court below has been pleased to dismiss the Suit brought by the appellant against the respondent u/s 13(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(2.) The case of the petitioner now appellant herein is that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent on 19.1995 as per Hindu rites and customs at the residence of the father of the respondent at Potka, P.S.Potka, East Singhbhum. They lived together as husband and wife at petitioners' house situated at Mandirpath, Shivnagar,Kadma, Jamshedpur till 15.5.2006. They were blessed with two daughters namely Nandita Mandal aged about 10 years and Shanta Mandal aged about 5 years. Petitioner is the only son of his parents. After few day of marriage respondent insisted the petitioner to live separately from his parents, which the petitioner denied and therefore respondent began to torture the petitioner mentally by using filthy words and inhuman behavior. Father of the petitioner died on 17.12001 due to ill behavior of the respondent. Respondent threatened to commit suicide on opposing her bad habit and finally she left the matrimonial house on 15.5.2006. Petitioner tried to satisfy the respondent in various ways but failed and therefore he filed suit for a decree of divorce.

(3.) The respondent appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement alleging interalia that the present suit is not maintainable in law and on facts and it is barred by principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. The respondent admitted that the marriage was solemnized with the petitioner and birth of two daughters from their wedlock. She further alleged that petitioner in connivance with his mother and sister tried his level best to drive out the respondent with her children form her in laws house. They completely deprived her from proper help, amenities and essential needs like food and cloths. She denied giving threats to the petitioner. Lastly respondent said that she had filed a petition under section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance and life time expenses. On such ground, prayer was made by the respondent for dismissal of the suit.