IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations of cruelty and desertion must be substantiated with credible evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to demonstrate that the conduct of the other spouse was intolerable.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2019 (decree signed on 15.06.2019) passed by Sri Nikesh Kumar Sinha, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoghar in Original Suit No. 57 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the suit preferred by the appellant seeking divorce has been dismissed.

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

4. The petitioner (appellant herein) had preferred a suit under Section 13 (1) (i-a) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent (respondent herein) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 20.06.1983 as per Hindu rites and customs at Saharsa as per Maithili Brahmin customs. After the second marriage had taken place between the parties, the respondent was brought to the residence of the petitioner in Quarter No. B/59, Doranda, Ranchi on 05.07.1983 and the respondent had lived with the petitioner at the said place till 29.12.1990. Out of the said wedlock of the petitioner and the respondent, a son was born on 01.04.1986. On 30.12.1990, the respondent without any just and reasonable cause had left the residence of the petitioner and had gone to her parents’ house at Saharsa. It has been stated that during her stay with the petitioner, the respondent had taken admission in M.A. (Psychology) in Ranchi University, Ranchi and ultimately passed out in 1st class. During her stay with the petitioner, the respondent had treated the petitioner with cruelty as she not only abused and manhandled the petitioner, but also assaulted him in presence of his parents, friends, associates and relatives. The parents of the petitioner suffered from several ailments and despite request made by the petitioner, the respondent did not take care of them. The petitioner himself suffered from diabetes, high blood pressure and a fractured spinal cord, but the respondent who was posted as an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Satsang College, Deoghar refused to join the petitioner and live with him, rather abused the petitioner and his parents over phone. In spite of the ill-behaviour of the respondent, the petitioner always intended to live a happy conjugal life with the respondent for which he wrote a series of letter to the respondent requesting her to come back to Ranchi and lead a marital life with the petitioner, but she did not give any heed to such letters. The petitioner had contacted the respondent on 26.10.1990 over telephone and requested her to come back to his residence at Ranchi, but she flatly refused and also abused him in filthy language. The petitioner also requested his father-in-law on 27.04.1991 and 30.05.1991. The petitioner had himself gone to Saharsa on 31.12.1991 to persuade the respondent to come back to Ranchi, but the respondent and her parents instead humiliated and insulted the petitioner and he had no option but to come back to Ranchi. It has been stated that the petitioner had given a legal notice to the respondent which was duly received by her, but the same did not evoke any response. The petitioner also thereafter filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was registered as Matrimonial Title Suit No. 31 of 1992, in which a decree for restitution of conjugal rights was passed on 25.01.1994. In spite of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent did not come back to the residence of the petitioner and continued to withdraw herself from the society of the petitioner. The petitioner had written letters, contacted the respondent telephonically and also personally went to the house of the respondent to persuade her to come back to Ranchi, but she remained adamant and re