PRAFULLA KACHOUA Vs. PARVATI KACHOUA AND ANR
LAWS(GAU)-2018-5-35
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on May 09,2018

Prafulla Kachoua Appellant
VERSUS
Parvati Kachoua And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. N. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents. The present appellant is the husband of the respondent No.1 who preferred Title Suit (D) No.48/2007 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur against the respondent No.1 under Section 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 implicating the respondent No.2 alleging that the respondent No.1 had illicit relation with him and later on they were married. Shredding of the unnecessary pleadings it is the case of the petitioner/appellant that he married the wife/respondent No.1 on 14.12.1998, as per Hindu rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 08.02.2000. After the marriage the conjugal life started residing at the residence of the petitioner/appellant. Since the year 2005, the respondent No.1/wife started avoiding the company of the petitioner/appellant and maintained relationship with the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 started to live at her paternal place since 29.04.2005 leaving away the female child with the petitioner/appellant who is in his care and custody. Though the petitioner/appellant tried the respondent No.1 to bring back to his company, refusing such request the said respondent No.1 continued with her relationship with the respondent No.2 which is extra marital in nature. On 04.11.2007, the respondent No.1 solemnized her second marriage with the respondent No.2 in presence of the people of the locality and since then she has been residing with the respondent No.2 at his residence as husband and wife. The respondent No.1 is involved in sexual intercourse with the respondent No.2 and there is no possibility of the respondent No.1 coming back to the company of the petitioner/appellant by leaving the illicit relationship with the respondent No.2 and as such he sought for dissolution of their marriage on the ground under Section 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
(2.) The respondent No.1 filed her written statement admitting her marriage with the petitioner/appellant and their conjugal life thereafter residing in the residence of the petitioner/appellant. Denying the allegation of avoidance of the company of the petitioner/appellant, the respondent No.1 pleaded that the petitioner/appellant avoided her company, started residing in a rented house at Rangapara from the month of August, 2005. Though on various occasions the respondent No.1 tried to meet the petitioner/appellant in the rented premises but owing to physical torture and cruelty, she had to take assistance from the Rangapara Mahila Samiti and had to file an FIR in the Rangapara Police Station against the petitioner/appellant. On the assurance of the petitioner/appellant, she withdrew the FIR on the promise that the petitioner/appellant would treat her as his legally married wife and also promised that she would not be restrained from meeting her daughter and to that effect, a compromise deed dated 07.05.2006 was executed between the parties in presence of witnesses. Refuting the allegation of extra marital activities and the sexual intercourse with the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 pleaded that the petitioner/appellant on 04.11.2007 sent some persons to the house of respondent No.2 and forcefully took the signatures of respondent Nos.1 and 2 on a blank stamp paper with a view to implicate them as husband and wife and get rid from her. It is also pleaded that the father of the respondent No.2 gave her shelter so as to protect her from the harassment of the petitioner/appellant. The allegation of having sexual intercourse with the respondent No.2 was specifically denied by the respondent No.1 and further brought on record that the respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. praying for maintenance from the petitioner/appellant pending trial before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonitput, Tezpur.
(3.) The respondent No.2 also filed his separate written statement. There is specific denial of the extra marital relation with the respondent No.1 including the alleged sexual relationship and admitted that the parents of the respondent No.2 provided shelter to the respondent No.1 owing to the harassment and torture caused to the respondent No.1 by the petitioner/husband.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.