The court affirmed that the evidence of persistent cruelty justified the dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, establishing a clear breakdown of the marital relationship.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated 03.02.2017 delivered in Title Suit (Divorce) 02 of 2015 by the Additional District Judge, Kamalpur dissolving the marriage between the appellant and his wife.

2. The wife instituted the suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on solitary ground viz., cruelty contemplated under section 13(1)(ia) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955. According to the wife (respondent herein), her marriage with the appellant was solemnized on 18.06.2006 as per Hindu rites and customs and thereafter she started conjugal life with the appellant in his residence at Bhubrighat in Karimganj District of Assam. After the marriage, appellant started demanding dowry from her for which a matrimonial discord developed between them. However, in the midst of difference, a daughter was born to them on 11.08.2007. The appellant was still creating pressure on his wife for bringing dowry and sometimes he had tortured her physically even in presence of his parents. Being irritated by the conduct of her husband, wife left her matrimonial home. After few years, they reconciled at the intervention of well wishers and the wife returned to her matrimonial home where she conceived second time. At the advanced stage of her pregnancy she went to her parents. On 10.08.2014, a son was born to her. Since, the birth of her son, the wife has been living at her parental home at Kamalpur along with her son. The daughter is living with his appellant father. After the birth of their son on 10.08.2014, the couple did not have cohabitation. On 28.01.2015, she filed the suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce in the Court of Additional District Judge at Kamalpur.

3. Appellant contested the suit by filing written statement. He pleaded that the only reason of their separation is his refusal to live as a 'Ghar Jamai' in his in-laws' house. When he refused this proposal, his in-laws started misbehaving with him and one day in his absence at home, the parents of his wife had taken her back to Kamalpur where the son was born. His wife did not even allow him to meet his son. He made earnest efforts to restore their relationship. For this purpose, he visited Kamalpur several times but his wife and in-laws did not even allow him to enter into their house. The appellant made a prayer to the Court to dismiss the petition of his wife seeking divorce.

4 The trial court had taken initiative for reconciliation of their dispute. When the efforts failed, the learned Additional District Judge took up the case for trial and framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:

(i) Whether the petition is maintainable in its present form.

(ii) Whether the wife was subjected to cruelty by her husband for dowry.

(iii) Whether the wife is entitled to a decree of divorce.

(iv) What are the other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to.

5. In the course of trial, the wife examined herself as PW-1, her father Ashok Upadhyay as PW-2, mother Puspa Upadhyay as PW-3, her neighbours Kaushal Kishore Ahir and Sanjib Ahir as PW-4 and PW-5 respectively and Dr. Jiteswar Ahir as PW-6. The wife also relied on two medical prescriptions which were taken into evidence and marked as Exbt.1 and Exbt.2. The appellant on the other hand examined himself as OPW-1, one Sitaram Gour as OPW-2, Umprakash Gowala as OPW-3 and one Janardhan Ahir as OPW-4.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court held that matrimonial offence of cruelty was proved against the husband and moreover the spouses had no trust and respect for each other. Court held that the spouses were living separately continuously for a period of 2 years prior to the institution of the case and their marriage had broken irretrievably. In this view of the matter, the trial court granted divorce in favour of the petitioner wife observing as under:

'11(ix) In the case at hand it is not in dispute that the parties have been living separately for