Sri Bikash Kanti Biswas vs Mrs Archana Deb Biswas

Ajit Singh, C.J

This appeal is by the husband - Bikash Kanti Biswas - against the judgment dated 16.05.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, No.1,

Guwahati in F.C. (Civil) No. 124/2011, whereby the petition filed by him against his wife - Archana Deb Biswas - under Section 13(1)(ia)&(ib) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ‘Act’) has been dismissed.

Facts in short are these. According to the appellant, he married the respondent on13.12.1999 and although he served at Mangaldoi in Darrang

District, she being a Central Government Servant was posted in Shillong. According to the appellant, as the distance between their places of posting

was too far, he took transfer to Guwahati to minimize the distance. His parents used to live in Hojai and he had to look after them. But the respondent

was not willful to visit his parental house and used to behave them improperly. Out of the wedlock, a girl child was also born in the month of February,

2001. In the year 2006, the respondent was transferred to Guwahati. She took a house on rent and started living there with her mother. Thereafter,

relationship between him and the respondent started deteriorating. His mother-in-law used to interfere too much in their family affairs and she

instigated the respondent not to pay any money to him or to his old and ageing parents. Accordingly, the respondent also stopped her support and used

to treat him with cruelty. She used to quarrel off and on with him causing nuisance in the locality, for which the landlord of the house had to interfere

on many occasions. On 13/8/2007, a quarrel took place between him and respondent and she abused him with filthy language and the situation became

so aggravated that the landlord had to again interfere and asked them to keep quite. The landlord also instructed him to go away from the house and,

therefore, in a bid to control the situation, he went out of the house. Later, when he tried to enter into the house again, the respondent also asked him

to go away and he being ashamed and humiliated went away. He was so depressed that he took leave of 30 days and went to his native place Hojai.

According to the appellant, he tried to reconcile, but in vain. When he tried to resume his conjugal life with the respondent, she threatened him not to

come back again to the house. The respondent also categorically said to him that her mother is the legal guardian and she cannot part away with her.

He, then, being afraid that respondent might institute some case against him, informed the Dispur Police Station, where a General Diary Entry was

made on 5/9/2007. The respondent never joined him and they had been living separately since 13/8/2007 and as such, their marriage has been

irretrievably broken down. Therefore, the appellant filed the aforesaid suit praying for a decree of divorce.

Respondent contested the suit denying the allegations made by appellant regardingmental cruelty meted out to him as well as his parents. She

contended that after marriage, both of them started their conjugal life. But the attitude of the appellant towards her was always very cruel and harsh.

He always behaved her inappropriately and he married her out of greed and lust. According to her, she was the only daughter of her parents and the

appellant thought her to be from a very rich family. She was not well treated in the matrimonial home at Hojai and her mother-in-law did not treat her

well. The appellant always neglected her even during her pregnancy and after the death of her father, the responsibility of her mother came on her

shoulder which was not to the liking of the appellant. Her motherin-law also always instigated the appellant against her. According to the respondent,

the appellant picked up a quarrel on 13/8/2007, with abusive language and the landlord had to interfere. The landlord asked the appellant to go away

and he left her company since then. The respondent requested him to come and join, but in vain. Repeated efforts were also made by her family, but

the appellant refused to resume conjugal life with her. The respondent expressed her willfulness to stay together with the appellant and prayed for

dismissal of the suit.

The trial court disbelieved the case of appellant and dismissed his petition for divorce.According to the trial court, he could neither prove the ground

of mental cruelty meted out to him by respondent nor could prove desertion by the respondent.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, wehave reached the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be

dismissed. The appellant prayed for the decree of divorce mainly on two grounds. Firstly, mental cruelty meted out to him by the respondent and

secondly, desertion of the respondent without any justifiable cause. The appellant during his cross examination admitted that there was in fact a

quarrel on 13/8/2007 and the landlord asked him to go away. Thereafter, he left for Hojai and stayed there for more than one month. He has also

categorically admitted that when he came to Guwahati from Hojai, he neither contacted the respondent over phone nor tried to meet her. He has even

admitted that he stayed separately and did not return to the rented house. The appellant further admitted that the respondent used to pay the rents of

the house and he used to bear other expenses. But no such document was adduced in evidence by the appellant that he used to bear the expenses of

the household. The mother of the appellantKalyani Biswas (PW-2)-deposed in her evidence that the appellant went to Hojai and stayed there for more

than two months after he left the rented house on 13/8/2007. Kamini Kumar Singha (PW-3) also deposed that the appellant took leave after 13/8/2007

and stayed at Hojai and thereafter he had been staying separately from the respondent. The respondent in her evidence has categorically testified that

when the appellant went away on 13/8/2007, he never returned to her. This fact is also supported by her mother Anima Deb (DW-2) in her evidence.

Therefore, it becomes crystal clear that the appellant deserted the respondent on 13/8/2007 and thereafter he did not return to her and as such, the

appellant has failed to prove that the respondent deserted him without any justifiable cause.

So far causing mental cruelty by the respondent to the appellant is concerned, therespondent in her evidence has categorically deposed that the

appellant insisted her mother to be removed from the rented house and she being the only daughter had no alternative but to look after her widowed

old mother. According to her, appellant did not bear any expense to run the household. The appellant could not produce any document to justify his

claim that he used to bear the other expenses of the household. The appellant could not also prove the General Diary Entry which he made due to

alleged cruelty of the respondent. On the contrary, it is the evidence that the appellant used to quarrel with the respondent for which the landlord had

to interfere and asked him to leave the house. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the appellant also could not prove the ground of cruelty

meted out to him by the respondent. Although the appellant alleged that respondent had misbehaved him in the office as well as in the rented house, he

has neither examined any person from his office nor the landlord to prove his allegation.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the trial court rightly dismissed thesuit of the appellant and there is no illegality or infirmity in the

impugned judgment calling for our interference.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.