Dissolution of marriage requires clear, corroborated evidence for adultery, cruelty, or desertion. Mere assertions lacking substantive proof, or those contradicted by evidence of continued cohabitation and ongoing marital responsibilities, are insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements for granting a divorce.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mr. Niladri Sekhar Mukharjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 4, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2023 (decree signed on 17.06.2023) passed by Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka in Original Suit No. 116/2019 whereby and whereunder, the suit preferred by the appellant under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 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 trial court.

4. The plaintiff (appellant herein) had preferred a suit under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of his marriage with the defendant no. 1 (respondent no. 1 herein) in which inter alia, it has been stated that the marriage of the plaintiff was solemnized with the defendant no. 1 on 19.02.1996 as per Christian rites and customs at village Gulamsuli, District- Dumka. After marriage, the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 started residing together as husband and wife at village Fasiya Dangal since 1996. Out of the said wedlock, a son was born to the couple in the year 2000. After marriage, owing to the difference in temperament, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 deteriorated. From the first night of the marriage, the character of the defendant no. 1 became doubtful and questionable in the mind of the plaintiff due to which the plaintiff has suffered continuous mental agony. The defendant no. 1 had illicit relationship with Debasis Baskey in the year 2004 and with Bachan Pandey in the year 2017 for which panchayati was also held. It has been stated that the defendant no. 1 also had an illicit relationship with Amit Singh and the tape-recorded conversation is in possession of the plaintiff.

5. On being noticed, the defendant no. 1 had appeared and filed a written statement in which the allegations made by the plaintiff has been denied. The plaintiff has tortured the defendant no. 1 by making reckless allegation on her character and since September 2008 had on several occasions, assaulted the defendant no. 1. On 27.05.2019, the plaintiff had brutally assaulted the defendant no. 1 which resulted in the defendant no. 1 making a complaint on 28.05.19 before the Dumka (M) P.S. Despite the plaintiff appearing before the Police, the matter could not be resolved. The defendant no. 1 has denied of ever having an illicit relationship with Debasis Baskey, Bachan Pandey and Amit Singh. In fact, it is the plaintiff who has an illicit relationship with Manju Murmu who stays in a rented house and the rent is paid by the plaintiff. When the defendant no. 1 went to the rented house of Manju Murmu, she had admitted of such relationship with the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 had made a written complaint to Dumka (M) P.S. on 04.07.2019 regarding such illicit relationship in which the plaintiff was given a notice but he did not appear. The son of the defendant no. 1 is a major who stays with her and in such circumstances, there is no question of the defendant no. 1 resorting to such immoral conduct. Since the defendant no. 1 did not consent to the request of the plaintiff to marry Manju Murmu, the suit has been instituted.

6. The plaintiff had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead Debasis Baskey, Bachan Pandey and Amit Singh as defendants and on such application being allowed, on