IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In a petition for divorce on ground of other party living in adultery, requirement of law as to join the paramour as a party.
(2 ) In a divorce petition where evidence and material reflected that dislike was only from one side, such party could not be allowed to seek divorce on a plea that it was irretrievable break-down of marriage.

R.S. Garg, CJ.—It is said that the marriages are fixed in the heaven but it would be true to say those are broken on the earth. The husband-appellant desirous of getting a decree for divorce has come to the Court with a submission that the wife was leading a adulterous life, she was treating the husband and his parents with cruelty, physically and mentally, and as there had been no re- union or co-habitation between the parties after a decree for judicial separation was passed, the ties between the parties be snapped and they be let free of their wedlock which is unnecessarily burdening them.

2. The undisputed facts are that on an earlier occasion in the year 1992 the husband filed Title Suit No.56 of 1992 for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, however, on 24.7.1993 the husband made a prayer for withdrawal of the said suit. The application for withdrawal was allowed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala with further direction that the husband would not be entitled to any order from the Court to get a liberty to file a fresh case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that the husband persistent in his attempt to get either a judicial separation or a writ of divorce again filed Title Suit No.2 of 1994 for judicial separation. It appears that the said suit proceeded ex parte against the respondent-wife. The decree accordingly was granted in favour of the husband on 29.8.1997 by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala. It appears that on the strength of the ex parte decree for judicial separation, the husband filed Title Suit (Divorce) No.52 of 2000 against the wife before the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1 )(i), (ia), (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act. At the same time he also claimed that because of non co-habitation or non reunion between the parties after the grant of decree for judicial separation in view of Section 13(IA) of the Hindu Marriage Act he was entitled to a decree.

3. The notices were served upon the wife, she appeared in the Court and filed her written statement. Immediately after receiving the notices of the present suit No.52 of 2000 the wife made an application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act so also for the setting aside the ex parte decree granted in Title Suit (Judicial Separation) No.2 of 1994. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial court. But however on a revision, the said rejection was set .aside and the High Court in Civil Revision No.67 of 2003 vide its order date 21.8.2003 remanded the matter back to the first Court with a direction to decide the application in accordance with law.

4. The husband in his plaint had submitted that the parties were Hindus and in accordance with Hindu rites they entered into the marriage ceremony and tied the wedlock out of which a daughter was born. The petitioner contended that the wife all through had been careless in discharge of her domestic work, she was obsessed and adamant and she had no sense of respect towards the husband or the parents of the husband, she was behaving in rough manner and was not showing any respect to anybody. The husband also asserted that the wife was earning little more than husband, therefore, also she was neglecting her domestic duties and was also denying the husband his matrimonial status. It was also contended and pleaded that the wife had, developed some illicit relation with a third person and that was clear from the fact that even after the office hours, the wife was coming late to the matrimonial home, she was seen in the company of a third person and late in the night she was talking on telephone with that person detailing the enjoyment of sex. It was also contended that as there had been no re-union or cohabitation after the grant of the decree for judicial separation, the said fact also provides a foundation for divorce. It was lastly contended