DEBDULAL SARKAR Vs. SMT. PAPIYA SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of Matrimonial Suit No. 186 of 2005 seeking decree for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent vide judgment dated 19th December, 2012 rendered by the Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. Matrimonial Suit was instituted on 21st September, 2005 by the petitioner, inter alia, asserting as follows:-

(3.) The appellant entered into nuptial knot with the respondent on 10th December, 1999, at Jamshedpur, as per Hindu rites and customs. A female child, namely, Deblina Sarkar, was born out of their wedlock on 16th September, 2001. Since inception of their marriage, the activities of the respondent-wife towards the family including his old father and elder brother were very much rude, aggressive and disrespectful. Respondent always tried to stay away with her own mother and brother at their place. Due to disrespectful behaviour and mental torture towards the appellant, the old father of the appellant was forced to stay away and live separately and only elder brother, Debashis Sarkar had left for abroad in October, 2004. After the marriage, the appellant had noticed Psychopathic disorder and/or persistent disorder of the respondent for which she was taken for treatment till recent time. The appellant felt that there was very slim chances of her cure. According to appellant, he could not reasonably be expected to live with the respondent-wife. She left the matrimonial home on 29.4.2005 without the consent and permission of the husband and is living with only daughter Deblina with her own mother and brother. The appellant served a legal notice on 1.6.2005 to the respondent which remain unreplied. Due to disrespectful behaviour and mental torture perpetrated by the respondent-wife, the appellant, had no option but to seek a decree for judicial separation against the respondent. By amendment dated 9.4.2008, several averments were incorporated in the plaint at paragraphs 7A to 7F and the appellant, was permitted to amend the prayer for seeking a decree of divorce against the respondent.