The main legal point established in the judgment is that the irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.08.2019 and decree dated 04.09.2019 passed by Shri Sandeep Srivastava, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gumla in Original Suit No. 28 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the petitioner (respondent herein) for dissolution of marriage u/s 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 has been allowed and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has been dissolved.

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 filed a suit against the respondent (appellant herein) u/s 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 wherein it has been stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 06.05.2014 at Aamgaon Church as per Christian religion and customs. The petitioner is an employee in the Railways and he was posted at Rourkela while the respondent is an employee in a Bank and posted at Bihar Sharif. The marital dispute started on 17.05.2015 as the respondent did not want to lead a conjugal life with the petitioner. It has been stated that the respondent had an illicit relationship with Samir Tigga. On 24.02.2015 a child was born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and the respondent. It has been stated that in spite of a meeting held in the village the dispute could not be settled and the petitioner decided to live separately from his wife.

5. The respondent no. 1 on being noticed had appeared and filed a written statement in which it has been stated that from the initial days of the marriage the relationship with her husband was not cordial due to the demand of dowry made by the petitioner having not been fulfilled. The petitioner is not inclined to keep the respondent no. 1 and her child because of an illicit relationship he is having with another lady with whom he wants to solemnize marriage. It has been stated that on numerous occasions the matter was brought to the knowledge of the village Panch of Silam and Aamgaon for settlement but the same did not yield any result as the petitioner on one pretext or the other denied to keep her and her child.

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

(I) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ?

(II) Whether the petitioner has got valid cause of action for this suit ?

(III) Whether the O.P. has illegal relations with co-respondent and co-respondent has committed adultery with the wife of petitioner is true ?

(IV) Whether the respondent does not want to lead the conjugal life with the petitioner is true ?

(V) Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 ?

(VI) Whether the petitioner is entitled for reliefs as prayed for ?

7. The petitioner has examined three witnesses in support of his case.

8. P.W.1 (Ajay Lakra) is the petitioner himself who has stated about his marriage having been solemnized with Sobha Minz on 06.05.2014 at Aamgaon Church. He has posted in the Railways as a Loco Pilot Driver while his wife works in Punjab National Bank. After the marriage from 17.05.2015 disputes started between both the sides and the respondent no. 1 did not want to lead a conjugal life with him as the respondent no. 1 was having an illicit relationship with respondent no. 2. He has stated that Panchayatis were held at village Silam and village Aamgaon for attempting at a settlement but the dispute could not be resolved as the respondent no. 1 had appeared in the Panchayati and had flatly refused to stay with the petitioner. He has stated that in the meantime the respondent no. 1 had given birth to a child on 24.02.2015 and he wants to have a DNA test as the child is not his. He has further stated that after marriage he