The court ruled that allegations of cruelty and desertion must be substantiated with clear evidence, which was lacking in this case, thus the marriage could not be dissolved.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kr. No. 2, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2018 (decree singed on 03.08.2018) passed by Sri Banshidhar Tiwari, learned Principal Judge Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj in Matrimonial Suit No. 67 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the marriage between the appellant and the respondent has been dissolved from the date of the decree.

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 (respondent herein) had preferred a suit for dissolution of marriage with the respondent (appellant herein) under section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 wherein it has been stated the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 28.05.1985 at village Lohar Pokhari, P.O. Dhawadih, P.S. Lesliganj within the district of Palamu. Out of the wedlock a son was born in the year 1987 who is now aged about 20 years and who stays with his mother (appellant). It has been stated that during the stay of the petitioner and the respondent at Kundri dispute started and the respondent frequently abused the petitioner and also alleged illicit relationship of the petitioner with another woman. The petitioner was subjected to mental and physical torture by the respondent and the respondent had also got the petitioner beaten up by her men. The respondent had left her matrimonial house on 10.06.1995, returned back on 12.06.1995 and finally left on 30.09.1995 and since then she is staying at her parents' house. The respondent in the meantime filed a Misc. Case against the petitioner due to which he had to remain in jail for four days. The respondent had also claimed maintenance and the court had directed the petitioner to make payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent and her son. The respondent had deserted the petitioner in the year 1995 and since then she is living separately with her parents at village Lohar Pokhari.

5. The respondent on being noticed had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations levelled by the petitioner against her in the plaint has been denied. It has been stated that in June, 1995 the petitioner along with his parents had brutally assaulted the respondent and ousted her and her son from her matrimonial house for non-fulfillment of the demand of Rs. 50,000/-. After the respondent was ousted from her matrimonial house the petitioner had developed relationship with one Samudri Devi and solemnized marriage with her. The respondent has expressed his desire to stay with the petitioner with full love and affection.

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

(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable in the eyes of law?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff has a valid cause of action for filing the petition for divorce?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff has suffered mental and physical cruelty at the hands of the respondent?

(iv) Whether the respondent has willfully deserted the petitioner since last 21 years without any reasonable cause?

(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the divorce petition?

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

8. PW-1 (Gaya Pal) is acquainted with the petitioner as well as the respondent. He has stated that he had attended the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent in the year 1985. After marriage the respondent had gone to her matrimonial house but left after two days and went to her parents' place and thereafter returned to her matrimonial house after two years. She once again had left for her parents' place. The petitioner had not stayed with the respondent for 25-26 years. A son was also born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the r