This appeal has been filed under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment dated 4.2.94 passed by the learned District Judge, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit 33 of 1989.

2. A suit was filed by the husband for dissolution of the marriage under section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The case of the plaintiff was that the wife behaved cruelly to the husband as well as to his mother and taking advantage of the absence of the husband due to exigency of service, she engaged herself into immoral activities and being warned she gave an undertaking in writing not to repeat such things. Thereafter she deserted the house of the plaintiff on 6.6.84 by taking away all her materials/belongings including ornaments given by husband. On the next date i.e. 7.6.84 an ejahar was lodged in the police station. Thereafter several notices were served through lawyer to the wife asking her to come back, but she did not come back. A written statement was filed by the wife wherein she denied all the allegations, rather she brought a fresh allegation against the husband stating that the husband maintained illicit relationship with one, Alpana Nath, the daughter of his maternal uncle and even they shared the same bed. Regarding the undertaking stated to be given by her, she stated that she was forced to sign a blank paper on the false plea of opening a bank account in her name and thereafter it was fabricated into a false document. It is the case of the wife that she never deserted the plaintiff, rather she was driven out from the house of the plaintiff causing mental and physical torture.

3. As many as 6 issues were framed. The plaintiff examined 6 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents. PW1 Sanahar Ali. He only deposed that on a morning when he was ploughing the field, he saw a married lady going out of the house of the plaintiff with three bags. In the cross examination he categorically stated that he did not know the wife of the plaintiff and he deposed as follows : "I have never seen Kripesh's wife leaving his house." PW 2 Kripamay Nath. He deposed that on 5.6.84 the defendant left for her paternal house early in the morning with her belongings. So it was known that she left for her father's house and what was the necessity to lodge an ejahar is not understood. It is further clear from the evidence of this witness that the plaintiff sometime used to abuse her. PW 3 is Kripesh Ranjan Nath. He deposed that he came to know that she left the house with her belongings without informing anybody and further she engaged herself in immoral activities having illicit relation with one Budul Nath, the servant and even she gave a written undertaking not to repeat such activities. The trial Court rightly disbelieved the deposition made by this witness as there was no corroboration with the statement made by other witnesses. Nothing is there that it was stated by the brother or other members of the family. So, it was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court. PW 4 is Girindra Nath, PW 5 Sunil Nath, PW 6 is Ranjoy Rajbongshi.

4. The defendant only examined herself as DW 1. A bare perusal of Ext 1 will show that this is a concocted document. It was not written by the defendant. It was written by plaintiff. On perusal of the materials on record, the suit was dismissed by the learned District Judge. Hence this appeal.

5.1 Have heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for defendant. The settled law is that whenever an allegation of adultery is brought, it must be proved by the person who takes up mat plea. It must be noticed that after amendment of the Act in 1976, a petition for divorce can lie at the instance by the husband or wile if the other party has been after the solemnization of the marriage committed even a single act of adultery. It is not necessary now to show that the respondents is living in adultery to bring a case under this section. The direct proof of adultery is not imperative. It would be unre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document