Jharkhand High Court
Kamal Gorai vs Smt. Menka Gorai And Anr. on 11 September, 2007
Equivalent citations: AIR2008JHAR36, I(2008)DMC260, [2007(4)JCR575(JHR)], AIR 2008 JHARKHAND 36, 2008 (61) ALLINDCAS 862, 2008 (2) ALJ (NOC) 505 (JHAR.), 2007 (3) AIR JHAR R 656, (2009) 1 MARRILJ 463, (2008) 61 ALLINDCAS 862 (JHA), (2008) 1 DMC 260
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal, D.G.R. Patnaik
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1988 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, in Matrimonial Suit No. 329 of 1995 whereby he dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-husband for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce.
Notice of appeal was sent to the respondent-wife but in spite of service of notice she has not appeared.
2. The appellant-husband filed the aforementioned suit for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty as contemplated under Section 17(l)(i)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The case of the appellant, as alleged in the application, is that the marriage between the appellant and the Respondent was solemnized in 1979 and after the marriage both of them led their conjugal life till 1990. Out of the said wedlock a female child was also born. The appellant alleged that the respondent-wife started mixing with the persons of the locality and she developed illicit relationship with respondent No. 2, Lalmohan Gorai, an employee of Medical Store of Central Hospital of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. It was alleged by the appellant that he found the respondent-wife in compromising posture with respondent No. 2, Lalmohan Gorai in his residence. A dispute arose between the appellant and the respondent. Subsequently the dispute was compromised and they began to live together but the appellant again made the same allegation that the respondent-wife had illicit relationship with Lalmohan Gorai, respondent No. 2.
3. It appears that the allegations made by the appellant against the respondent-wife have not been proved. The appellant who was examined as AW 4, has not stated in his evidence that he ever found the respondent in compromising posture with respondent No. 2.
4. The trial Court, after discussing the evidence elaborately, recorded a conclusive finding that the appellant-husband has failed to prove the allegation of adultery and cruelty. Consequently the trial Court dismissed the suit.
5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant very fairly submitted that although the allegation of adultery and cruelty has not been proved by the appellant-husband but having regard to the fact that both the appellant and the respondent No. 1 have been residing separately for the last so many years and there is no chance of any compromise, it is a fit case where the marriage should be dissolved. In absence of the respondent-wife, we cannot proceed to decide the issue of dissolution of marriage. It would be proper for the parties-to get the marriage dissolved.
6. As noticed above, because of lack of evidence, the suit for dissolution of marriage filed by the husband-appellant was dismissed. We also, after re-appreciation of evidence, do not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the trial Court. We have, therefore, no other option but to affirm the judgment passed by the trial Court by dismissing this appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.