VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the appellant -wife has been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.12.1999 and 19.07.2000, respectively passed in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 32 of 1993 by Shri M. Thakur. 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the Matrimonial Suit filed by respondent -husband Sadanand Das Goswami was decreed and his marriage with his appellant wife Santoshi Devi was dissolved by a decree of divorce. However, a sum of Rs. 300.00 per month was allowed as permanent alimony to the appellant for her maintenance,
(2.) THE petitioner -respondent Sadanand Das Goswami had filed the said Matrimonial Suit on 10.06.1993 under Sec.13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as the said Act] for dissolution of his marriage with his appellant -wife Santoshi Devi and in the alternative for annulment of their marriage under Sec.12(1)(d) of the said Act. The case of the petitioner -respondent, in brief, is that his marriage was performed on 20.04.1988 with the appellant according to the Hindu religion and rites at village Kundrilong PS Ichagarh District Singhbhum West and the appellant -wife came to her matrimonial home at village Gundukathartoli in his company on the following day of the marriage where they lived together as husband and wife and "Asthmangla" was held on the fourth day of their marriage in which Buda and Durga, the brothers of the appellant -wife were present and they brought the appellant to their house in village Kundrilong where she fell ill. It is alleged that his father went to her parent 's house in the month of June to bring the appellant but she did not return to her matrimonial home for the reasons that she has not recovered from her illness as per request of her father and, thereafter he remained busy with cultivation work and he could not go to the parents house of his wife for Roksadi and he had sent a letter to her father requesting him to send his wife to his house before Durga Puja in the year 1988 but her father came to his house and requested his father to allow him to go to his house before Durga Puja and enjoy the Puja festival there and after Vijayadashmi he would arrange for the Roksadi for the appellant but he could not go to the house of the parent of his wife as he had fallen ill. The case of the respondent -husband further is that Durga, the brother of his wife came to his house on 16.10.1988 and informed his parents that the appellant -wife has given birth to a female child on that day which was an utter surprise for them as to how a child has been born within six months of the marriage and Aditya Kumar Das, the elder brother of the respondent -husband was sent by his father in the company of Durga to the parent 'shouse of the appellant and on his return from there he reported to his parent that a female child has been born to the appellant -wife and, thereafter, on 21.10.1988, the father of the respondent -husband went to see the child at Kundrilong where he expressed his suspicion in the matter and asked her father to get the blood of the child examined at Ranchi or Tata and he further sent two letters on 25.10.1988 and 26.10.1988 by registered post to her father intimidating him that they had great suspicion regarding the child having been born through the respondent and her father came to the house of this respondent on 05.11.1988 and informed that the said child had died on 28.10.1988 and this information confirmed the suspicion of the respondent and his parent that the appellant -wife conceived through some other person before her marriage with this respondent. It is further alleged that the father bf the appellant wife had knowledge that the appellant had illicit connection with some persons and she had conceived before the marriage as a result of illicit intercourse but he kept the matter concealed and got the appellant married with this respondent by practicing fraud and it further transpired in the month of February, 1993 that the appellant has illicit connection with her brother -in -law. Santosh Kumar Mahanta (who was impleaded as respondent No. 2 before the trial Court on amendment). It is also alleged that his appellant wife is an unchaste woman and it is not at all desirable to keep her in his house and his prestige and position in the society has been damaged as a result of his marriage with a woman of loose character.
(3.) THE case of the appellant wife inter alia is that after solemnisation of his marriage with her respondent -husband on 20.04.988 she had gone with him to her matrimonial home where she lived together with him for more than two and half years and only on the occasion of "Asthmangla" she along with her husband had come to her parent 'shouse and soon, thereafter, she went back with him to her matrimonial home. Her further case is that she returned to her parent 's house with her father on the eve of Makar festival in 1991 with the permission of her husband and his father and, thereafter, she was not taken back to her matrimonial home in spite of repeated requests and, thereafter, she came to her matrimonial home in the company of her father but she was not allowed to enter in her matrimonial home as a result of which she had to come back with her father to her parent 'shouse and on that occasion she and her father were insulated and humiliated by her husband and his father and also a demand of Rs. 20,000.00 for the purpose of business and a Hero Honda motorcycle was made. Her case further is that her husband and his father had taken a sum of Rs. 22,000.00 from her father for starting a business and the said amount was never returned by them and further amount was also demanded and also a Hero Honda motorcycle was demanded from her father and she was tortured to put pressure on her father for providing a Hero Honda motorcycle and during her stay for two and half years in her matrimonial home after the marriage she had to face constant torture from her husband and his family members. The appellant -wife has specifically denied all the allegations alleged against her regarding her having illicit connection with someone prior to her marriage and as a result of that giving birth to a female child who has subsequently died and suppressing the fact of her illicit relationship by her father solemnisation her marriage with her respondent husband and all the allegations regarding her chastity are baseless and wild allegations. She has also denied that the "Asthmangla" was held in her matrimonial home in which his brothers Buda and Durga had come and with them she has returned to her parent 'shouse and the father of her husband had come to her parent 'shouse to take her back and on the request of her father for her stay for one month in her parent 'shouse on the ground of her illness she did not come back to her matrimonial home as well as the fact that due to the cultivation work her husband could not go to her parent 'shouse for Roksadi. It is also alleged that it is false to say that her husband sent a letter to her father requesting him to bring back her to his house before Durga Puja in 1988 as well as the fact that her father had come to the house of her husband and made a request to the father of her husband to allow him to come to her parent 'shouse before Durga Puja. The further case of the appellant -wife is that she has no illicit relation with any other person at the time she was living either with her parents or with her husband and she has never given birth to any child and any allegation in respect thereof or in connection therewith is totally false and incorrect and the said allegation has been deliberately set up by her husband to suit his nefarious design to get rid of her due to the non -fulfilment of the demand of money and Hero Honda motorcycle. Her further case is that her petitioner -respondent husband has solemnised his second marriage with the daughter of Bihari Das and she has filed Complaint Case No. 1 of 1994 against her husband and his family members which is subjudice in the Court of Shri Som Prakash Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Seraikella for demanding dowry, treating her with cruelty and for bigamy.;