BIKASH KANTI BISWAS S/O BIRAJ KANTI BISWAS Vs. ARCHANA DEB BISWAS W/O BIKASH KANTI BISWAS
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Bikash Kanti Biswas S/O Biraj Kanti Biswas
Archana Deb Biswas W/O Bikash Kanti Biswas
Click here to view full judgement.
Ajit Singh, J. -
(1.) This appeal is by the husband - Bikash Kanti Biswas - against the judgment dated 16.05.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, No.1, Guwahati in F.C. (Civil) No. 124/2011, whereby the petition filed by him against his wife - Archana Deb Biswas - under Section 13(1)(ia)&(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'Act') has been dismissed.
(2.) Facts in short are these. According to the appellant, he married the respondent on 13.12.1999 and although he served at Mangaldoi in Darrang District, she being a Central Government Servant was posted in Shillong. According to the appellant, as the distance between their places of posting was too far, he took transfer to Guwahati to minimize the distance. His parents used to live in Hojai and he had to look after them. But the respondent was not willful to visit his parental house and used to behave them improperly. Out of the wedlock, a girl child was also born in the month of February, 2001. In the year 2006, the respondent was transferred to Guwahati. She took a house on rent and started living there with her mother. Thereafter, relationship between him and the respondent started deteriorating. His mother-in-law used to interfere too much in their family affairs and she instigated the respondent not to pay any money to him or to his old and ageing parents. Accordingly, the respondent also stopped her support and used to treat him with cruelty. She used to quarrel off and on with him causing nuisance in the locality, for which the landlord of the house had to interfere on many occasions. On 13/8/2007, a quarrel took place between him and respondent and she abused him with filthy language and the situation became so aggravated that the landlord had to again interfere and asked them to keep quite. The landlord also instructed him to go away from the house and, therefore, in a bid to control the situation, he went out of the house. Later, when he tried to enter into the house again, the respondent also asked him to go away and he being ashamed and humiliated went away. He was so depressed that he took leave of 30 days and went to his native place Hojai. According to the appellant, he tried to reconcile, but in vain. When he tried to resume his conjugal life with the respondent, she threatened him not to come back again to the house. The respondent also categorically said to him that her mother is the legal guardian and she cannot part away with her. He, then, being afraid that respondent might institute some case against him, informed the Dispur Police Station, where a General Diary Entry was made on 5/9/2007. The respondent never joined him and they had been living separately since 13/8/2007 and as such, their marriage has been irretrievably broken down. Therefore, the appellant filed the aforesaid suit praying for a decree of divorce.
(3.) Respondent contested the suit denying the allegations made by appellant regarding mental cruelty meted out to him as well as his parents. She contended that after marriage, both of them started their conjugal life. But the attitude of the appellant towards her was always very cruel and harsh. He always behaved her inappropriately and he married her out of greed and lust. According to her, she was the only daughter of her parents and the appellant thought her to be from a very rich family. She was not well treated in the matrimonial home at Hojai and her mother-in-law did not treat her well. The appellant always neglected her even during her pregnancy and after the death of her father, the responsibility of her mother came on her shoulder which was not to the liking of the appellant. Her motherin-law also always instigated the appellant against her. According to the respondent, the appellant picked up a quarrel on 13/8/2007, with abusive language and the landlord had to interfere. The landlord asked the appellant to go away and he left her company since then. The respondent requested him to come and join, but in vain. Repeated efforts were also made by her family, but the appellant refused to resume conjugal life with her. The respondent expressed her willfulness to stay together with the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the suit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.