The appeal for divorce was dismissed due to lack of credible evidence supporting claims of cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

JUDGMENT

S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. B. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 28 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 from the judgment dated 30.01.2019 delivered in T.S.(Divorce)No.05/2018 by the Additional District Judge, Dhalai District, Kamalpur. By the said judgment, the Additional District Judge has declined to grant the divorce and consequently dismissed the suit. It has been observed by the Additional District Judge that the evidence, introduced and recorded, in the case does not reflect any such situation which can demand the dissolution of marriage between the petitioner [the appellant and the respondent].

3. Mr. B. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that while returning the said finding, the Additional District Judge has appreciated the evidence perversely as he did not read the evidence properly. If the evidence was read properly, it would have been apparent that the appellant has established the incidence of cruelty that she suffered during her stay with the respondent. That apart, Mr. Debbarma, learned counsel has pointed out that the appellant is not inclined to live with the respondent. That apart, the appellant and the respondent are living separately since 14.04.2016 and as such, that constitutes desertion as the marital tie has been irretrievably shattered.

4. But the respondent, as it appears from the records, has been resisting the plea of divorce. He has made a categorical statement in his written statement that he intends to take back the appellant for reconstruction of the matrimonial life. Even in the court, he had expressed his intention to take the appellant back, but the appellant had refused on the ground that she was tortured in the matrimonial home.

5. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has pointedly argued before us that even if the entire story of the appellant is believed, the suit is wholly based on one incidence of 14.04.2016. Even, that incidence has been disbelieved by the Additional District Judge for the reason that there is no evidence relating to the attending circumstances. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel having read the evidence has submitted that the suit is a ploy to get rid of the respondent as the appellant has already negotiating for another marriage.

6. Situated thus, we have scrutinized the records of evidence. It appears that for purpose of the decision in the suit, the following issues were framed:

I. Whether the petitioner and respondent are legally married husband and wife as per Hindu Law?

II. Whether the petitioner was tortured by the respondents during subsistence of their matrimonial life?

III. Whether the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down?

IV. Whether the petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce dissolving their marriage?

7. The appellant, as the petitioner, adduced two witnesses. She examined herself as PW-1 whereas her father had been examined as PW-2. While deposing in the court, the appellant [PW-1] has stated that the marriage of the parties was solemnized on 24.02.2016 and after two months of the marriage, she faced the matrimonial harassment of various forms from the respondent and other inmates. The appellant has narrated an incidence of 14.04.2016. According to her, on that day 'she was mercilessly beaten by the respondent' for which she sustained serious bodily injuries on her person and she was driven out from her matrimonial home. Finding no other alternative, she took shelter in her parental home at Kuchainala. According to the petitioner, the respondent is an ill-mannered, ill-tem