Solemnization of second marriage by wife during subsistence of first constitutes mental cruelty, justifying divorce; additional evidence thereof admissible in appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anshuman Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-08-2018 (decree signed on 31-08-2018) passed by Sri Yogeshwar Mani, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro in Original Suit No. 323/2015, whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent under Section 13(1)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been dismissed.

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

4. The petitioner/husband (appellant herein) had filed a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife (respondent herein also) in which it has been stated that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized as per Hindu rites and customs at Swayamwar Vatika, Deoghar on 02-06-2013. After the marriage was solemnized, the respondent came to her matrimonial house at Chas, Bokaro where she stayed for 6 days. The respondent is a temperamental and whimsical lady and had emanated rude behavior with the petitioner and his parents. The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was never consummated as the respondent had shown her disinclination to have a child. It has been stated that after 6 days of marriage, the respondent had left her matrimonial house and after much persuasion, the respondent had returned to her matrimonial house on 03-09-2013. There was, however, no change in the behavior of the respondent and the father of the petitioner was abused when he interrupted the respondent talking to someone over phone for long hours asking her to concentrate on domestic chores. The respondent had once again left her matrimonial house only to be persuaded by the petitioner again to return and the petitioner had agreed to the condition of the respondent to have a separate kitchen for herself. It has been stated that once when the petitioner was searching for his clothes in the almirah, he came across a letter hidden in the clothes written by the respondent which indicated that the respondent had physical relationship with another person. On being confronted, the respondent became enraged and told the petitioner that she enjoys the company of her friend more than the petitioner. The respondent had left her matrimonial house on 05-10-2013 along with her clothes and jewelry with the threatening that the petitioner and his parents will be implicated by her in false and fabricated cases. Despite attempts made by the petitioner, the respondent refused to return to her matrimonial house. The petitioner had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 158/2014 and when the respondent, during the conciliation proceedings, had refused to reside with the petitioner, the petitioner was compelled to file an application for withdrawal of the suit. The respondent had filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 382/2014 against the petitioner and his parents and she had also submitted two written complaints in the office of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has broken down irretrievably due to the circumstances created by the respondent.

5. On being noticed, the respondent had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations made against the respondent has been denied. The respondent had stayed at her matrimonial house for six months and during