The main legal point established in the judgment is that evidence of cruelty and desertion must be adequately proven, and reliance on retracted allegations without considering the reasons for retraction is not sufficient to dissolve a marriage.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2018 passed by Sri Banshidhar Tiwari, learned Principal Judge Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Matrimonial Suit No. 112 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the petitioner (respondent herein) u/s 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party (appellant herein) has been dissolved from the date of decree.

3. For the sake of convenience both the parties are referred to in this judgment as per their status in the learned court below.

4. The petitioner (respondent herein) had preferred a suit u/s 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the opposite party (appellant herein) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party in the year 1998. After the solemnization of the marriage the opposite party had treated the petitioner with brutality from 2001-2009. The opposite party also used to assault the petitioner and torture her parents. It has been stated that the opposite party came to her parental home in 2004 and instituted a complaint case u/s 498A of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act against the petitioner and her parents. The matter however was compromised and she started living at her matrimonial house. The opposite party would intermittently flee away to her parents’ house. It has been stated that she is staying at her parental home since the year 2009 and when the petitioner wanted to bring her back, he was subjected to abuse and the opposite party had refused to come back to her matrimonial house. The opposite party had deserted the petitioner for more than four years.

5. The opposite party on being noticed had appeared and filed her written statement, in which, she has denied the allegations leveled against her and has further stated that there was a demand of dowry and she was apprehending a threat to her life which resulted in her lodging Complaint Case No. 471/2004 u/s 498A of the IPC and other offences. The petitioner entered into a compromise but had never adhered to the terms and conditions of the compromise and he had once again resorted to his earlier cruel behavior against her. She has stated that there was no cruelty meted out to the petitioner from her side but the reverse was true. The petitioner is still retaining the ornaments gifted in the marriage. She has also stated that she was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial house by the petitioner and no amount of maintenance was extended to her.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:

(I) Is the matrimonial suit, as framed and filed maintainable ?

(II) Is the petitioner has valid cause of action for the suit ?

(III) Is the petitioner entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion ?

(IV) To what other relief or reliefs, the petitioner is entitled to ?

7. In support of his case the petitioner has examined four witnesses.

8. P.W.1 (Etwari Devi) is the mother of the petitioner who has stated that she got the marriage of her son solemnized with Khirmani Devi about 19 years back. No children were born out of the said wedlock. Both the parties stayed together for 9-10 years. For the last 7-8 years the opposite party is residing at her parents’ house. She has stated that the opposite party never used to respect anyone in her matrimonial house and used to frequently flee away to her parents’ house. She used to abuse her in-laws and sometimes resorted to assault. On a few occasions, she had assaulted the petitioner. The petitioner had thrice gone to the place of his in-laws to bring back the opposite party but she refused. She has also stated that her son was not properly treated at her in-law’s place.

In cross-examination, she