MALATI MAHATO Vs. MANOJ MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal, under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the judgment and decree, dated 05.03.2011, passed by the learned District Judge, Dhubri, in Title Suit (Divorce) No. 5 of 2008, allowing the application made by the respondent herein under Section 3(1)(i)(b)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and decreeing thereby the respondent's suit dissolving his marriage with the appellant. We have heard Mr. S. Murarka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. G. Soren, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The respondent, as petitioner, made an application, under Section 3(1)(i)(b)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of dissolution of his marriage with the appellant, the case of the present appellant, as petitioner, being, in brief, thus: The petitioner, Manoj Mahato, married the opposite party, Malati Mahato, as per Hindu rites, on 01.05.2001, at Dhubri, at the parental house of opposite party. On the following day of their marriage, the petitioner discovered that his wife had been suffering from mental disorder and that this fact had been suppressed by her parents at the time of her marriage with the petitioner and they, thus, played fraud. Describing as to how the fact of opposite party having been suffering from mental disorder came to surface, the petitioner alleged that while he had been entertaining his guests and invitees, at his house at Kokrajhar, following his marriage with the opposite party, the opposite party misbehaved with the guests and invitees started moving among them in abnormal manner and when the petitioner tried to pacify the opposite party, she created a scene by throwing cups and plates on the petitioner. The opposite party also openly declared that the petitioner was not her choice and she would not lead conjugal life with the petitioner. When the fact as to how the opposite party behaved was disclosed to her parents, they assured the petitioner that the opposite party would be cured if she was provided with proper medical treatment. The petitioner, therefore, got the opposite party treated by medical specialist at Cooch Behar and Guwahati, but she was not cured and the doctors opined that she was a patient of chronic schizophrenia. Till the month of February, 2005, the opposite party lived with the petitioner at his house with frequent intervals inasmuch as she used to visit, at small intervals, her parents and stayed with them. During the long period of his living with the opposite party, the opposite party was never cooperative, she did not cohabit with the petitioner and insisted that the petitioner shifts to her father's house and lives there as Gharjamai (i.e., son-in-law, who lives with his parents-in-law at the house of his parents-in-law). Since the petitioner did not agree to live at the house of his parents-in-law, the opposite party refused to live with the petitioner, misbehaved with him and used abusive language on all occasions. The petitioner is a teacher in a local private school. In the absence of the petitioner, the opposite party had, in collusion with her parents, left her matrimonial house and went away to her parental house at Dhubri and carried with her, from the house of the petitioner, all her belongings and since then, she has been living at her parental house. With the case, so pleaded, the petitioner sought for a decree of dissolution of his marriage with the opposite party.

(3.) The opposite party No. 1 contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein she contended, inter alia, that there was no cause of action, the suit was not maintainable, material facts had been suppressed and averments, with ulterior motive, had been made, the facts narrated in the petition, seeking dissolution of marriage, were false, imaginary and concocted. The opposite party denied that she had been suffering from mental disorder or had ever behaved abnormally. The opposite party accused the petitioner of having the intention of throwing her out of her conjugal life and with this object in view, he conspired to fabricate some documents to show that the opposite party was abnormal. The opposite party also accused the petitioner of having developed intimacy with another lady and wanted to marry her and he, therefore, made the allegations, which were false, unfounded and baseless inasmuch as the opposite party has never suffered from any mental illness and, hence, the suit deserves to be dismissed.