JUDGMENT :

[S.K. Medhil, J.]

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against judgment and decree, dated 12.07.2012, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia, in Div. A. Suit No. 08/2010 (YPA). By the impugned judgment, divorce has been granted on the application filed by the respondent no. 1/husband. The appellant herein is the wife. The parties are Hindus by religion.

2. Before going to the issue which needs determination, the facts of the case may be put in a nutshell as follows:

3. The appellant is a permanent resident of the State of Odisha and presently residing at Hyderabad. The respondent no. 1/husband of the appellant is also a permanent resident of Odisha. The husband was initially an Officer of the Air Force and was thereafter working under the Pawan Hans, New Delhi. The marriage of the parties was solemnised on 14.07.1985 at Odisha as per the Hindu rites and rituals. The respondent who was working with the Pawan Hans had occasions to come to the State of Arunachal Pradesh often. The parties have two daughters.

4. The respondent/husband was found to be wholly negligent in looking after his family including the 2 (two) daughters and had also developed an illicit relationship with a lady of Arunachal Pradesh. Subsequently, the suit was instituted in the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia. The suit for divorce was filed by invoking the provisions of Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act and in lieu thereof, under Section 13(1) (ib) i.e. on the ground of desertion.

5. The aforesaid suit, as per the appellant was instituted in a Court without jurisdiction and since the appellant was at Hyderabad, she did not receive any notice of the suit and accordingly, the same had proceeded ex-parte. Since the question of mutual consent did not arise, the learned Court proceeded to decide the suit on the basis of Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

6. The respondent no 1 had deposed as PW-1 and the learned Court held that since the case of desertion was made out, decree was granted, which is the subject matter of challenge.

7. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant came to learn that in the meantime, the respondent no. 1 had married a lady of Arunachal Pradesh and vide order dated 21.01.2019, she was arrayed as respondent no. 2.

8. I have heard Ms. N. Hawelia, learned counsel for the appellant, whereas, Shri P. Saikia, learned counsel had appeared for the respondent no. 1/husband. The respondent no. 2 is represented by Ms. H. Jeram, learned counsel.

9. Ms. Hawelia, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, on amongst others, two apparent grounds. By drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that desertion has been held to be proved on the only ground that the parties were living separately without any co-habitation for the last 2 (two) years. Secondly, the jurisdiction of the learned District Court has also been challenged as under no circumstances, the District Court, Yupia, will have any jurisdiction to try the suit.

10. On the other hand, Shri P. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, submits that the decree has been rightly passed as the appellant without reasons was staying separately for a period which was more than 2 (two) years. As regards the jurisdiction, the respondent no. 1 had contended that since the respondent no. 1 was residing within the jurisdiction of the learned Court at Yupia, the suit was not barred by law.

11. The issue which will arise for determination is that whether a decree on the ground of desertion has been rightly granted in the instant case. The issue of jurisdiction is also to be determined.

12. Under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, one of the specific grounds