JUDGMENT :

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.:

Prayer:

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts

Act, 1984 directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.04.2024 and decree dated 27.04.2024 passed by Learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court No. II, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder the marriage between the appellant-wife, namely, Barkha Rani and the respondent-husband, namely, Sanjay Kumar has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.

Factual Matrix:

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred herein as:

It is a case of the petitioner-husband that the marriage of the petitioner-husband, namely, Sanjay Kumar with Opposite Party- wife, namely, Barkha Rani was solemnized on 12.06.2005 at Dhanbad, according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, the appellant-wife and respondent-husband lived together at Dhanbad. Out of the wedlock, the couple was blessed with a child. It is stated by the respondent-husband herein that the appellant-wife has treated the husband with cruelty.

Further, it has been stated that the appellant-wife has illicit relation with the person namely Avinash Vijay Ratan and presently the appellant-wife is residing with the same person.

The petitioner-husband has filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal life which was decided in favour of husband on 23.03.2023 in Original Suit No. 124 of 2020, but in spite of that the appellant-wife is living with Avinash Vijay Ratna and declined to live with the petitioner.

Therefore, the petitioner husband (respondent herein) filed a suit for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Dhanbad under Section 13 (i)(i-a) (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty.

3. Since the wife (appellant herein) had not appear before the Family Court, the said case has been proceeded ex-parte .

4. The petitioner-husband, in support of his case, has adduced three witnesses including himself. Therefore, altogether three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the husband (respondent herein), namely, Shalini Das as P.W. 1, Archana Kumari, as P.W. 2 and Sanjay Kumar (respondent-husband herein) as P.W. 3.

5. The relevant portion of the testimonies of the witnesses are mentioned herein which reads as:

(i) Sanjay Kumar, P.W. 3 is petitioner-husband (respondent herein) who has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he was married with respondent Barkha Rani on 12.06.2005 without any dowry. They both are residing separately for about four years and on date 29.06.2019, the respondent without any reason left the sasural to reside with another person namely Abinash Vijay Ratna. Thereafter, he has filed a case No. 124/20 for restitution of conjugal life in which judgment was passed in his favour, but in spite of the order of the Court, she did not return to her sasural. The wife has no intimacy either with him or with her son. She is an irresponsible lady and she has no concern with him and his family members and so he has filed divorce case against her. In court question, he has further stated that his wife did not reside with him since 29.06.2019. The relation between both parties is not good since the solemnization of marriage on 12.06.2005. He had stated that 5-6 years ago, another person intervened to their conjugal life and thereafter the relation between both parties got deteriorated. He has seen the aforesaid person along with his wife in his house. He persuaded his wife but she did not ready to leave any things.

(ii) Shalini Das, P.W. 1, is an independent witness, who deposed that this case was filed by Sanjay Kumar for divorce against his wife, Barkha Rani who is residing with Avinash Vijay her maika. The Rrealatntiao inn Bbheutwli e‘Den’ Blboockth. Shpea rdtoieess nwota sr esnidoet ing ood from the beginning of the marriage.

(iii) Archana Kumari, P.W. 2 has