Adultery in matrimonial law is one of the principal grounds for divorce, and has been defined as consensual sexual intercourse between a married person and another person of opposite sex during the subsistence of the marriage.

S.C. Das, J.

This matrimonial appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2011 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar in case No. T.S.(Divorce) 70/2009.

2. We have heard learned counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. D.K.Biswas for the respondent No.1. There was no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Respondent No.1, Sri Debasish Sinha (hereinafter mentioned as the petitioner) set the law in motion by presenting a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, North Tripura seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant herein on the ground of adultery and cruelty. He arrayed the appellant as respondent No.1 (hereinafter mentioned as respondent No.1) in the petition for divorce and also arrayed the respondent No.2 (hereinafter mentioned as respondent No.2) in the divorce petition alleging that the respondent No.1 i.e. Kuheli Sinha was engaged in adultery with the respondent No.2, Sri Subhashish Sinha.

4. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage of the petitioner Debasish Sinha was solemnized with the respondent No.1 Kuheli Sinha on 10.05.1996 as per Hindu rites and thereafter they lived and cohabited as husband and wife in the matrimonial home at Ishabpur and thereafter at Kumarghat in a rented house where the petitioner was working as a Panchayat Secretary under the Govt. of Tripura and they have two sons namely Snehasish Sinha and Debayan Sinha.

5. It is inter alia alleged by the petitioner that after his transfer from Kumarghat to Gandacherra he was compelled to shift his wife and children to Kailashahar in his house at Ishabpur. In the year 2004 he was again transferred to Dasda Kanchanpur. In the first part of 2005 he took his wife, the respondent No.1 with children to Kanchanpur. His mother-in-law also was living with him since she had no other way after the death of his father-in-law. In the year 2005, on a certain day, respondent No.2, who was not at all a relative of the petitioner or the respondent No.1, came to the house of the petitioner at Kanchanpur along with two other friends and they expressed that they went there to see respondent No.1 because of their previous acquaintance. The petitioner arranged for their food and stay giving them all reception. Respondent No.2 proposed to form a cooperative society and intended to make respondent No.1 i.e. the wife of the petitioner as President of the same. Since then, the respondent No.1 was pressing the petitioner for shifting to Kailashahar to form a cooperative society with respondent No.2 and also intended that the children should be admitted in the Central School at Kailashahar. Because of the pressure of the respondent No.1, the petitioner ultimately agreed and in April,2006 respondent No.1 with the children were shifted at Kailashahar and started living in the house of the petitioner at Ishabpur. Thereafter a cooperative society was constituted by the respondent No.2 as a Secretary and the respondent No.1 was made the President of the said cooperative society. The fact was intimated to the petitioner by the respondent No.1. Thereafter the petitioner was observing that something wrong was going on. Whenever the petitioner came to Kailashahar he found that both the respondents were in a very intimate position gossiping with each other and almost every day evening the respondent No.2 would arrange sitting for playing cards with the respondent No.1 and his other friends in the house of the petitioner. The villagers were also complaining of such intimate mixing of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner also observed that respondent No.1 became non-attentive to the children in respect of their studies and when the petitioner protested such free mixing of the respondent No.1 with respondent No.2, respondent No.1 becam