Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 498 (GAU)

Chandan Kumar Paul v. Kalpana Kundu

2010-07-23

C.R.SARMA, RANJAN GOGOI

body2010
JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 19.06.2001, passed by the learned District Judge, Kokrajhar, in T.S. (D) No. 22/92. The Appellant, as Petitioner, instituted a suit for dissolution of his marriage with the Respondent/opposite party, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned District Judge, dismissed the suit for divorce. Hence, the Appellant-Petitioner has carried the appeal to this Court. 2. The Appellant-Petitioner's case, in short, may be stated as follows: The marriage between the Appellant-Petitioner and the Respondent/opposite party was solemnized on 22.04.1990 according to Hindu rites and customs and, thereafter, the said couple used to live as husband wife in the marital home. After about two months from the date of the said marriage, the Respondent/opposite party left the marital home, and, thereafter, she again joined the Appellant-Petitioner in her marital home for a short period i.e. on the day of Biswakarma puja. Subsequently, during her stay in her parents house, the Respondent/opposite party gave birth of a female child and after the birth of the said child also, in the month of November, 1991, the Respondent/opposite party, along with her child, came to her marital home and after staying with her husband i.e. Appellant-Petitioner for few days, she again left for her parents house. According to the Appellant-Petitioner, the Respondent/opposite party, during her stay in her marital home, apart from assaulting the Appellant-Petitioner and treating him with cruelty, used to misbehave and insult him by saying that the Appellant-Petitioner, being a non- matriculate, was simply a Grade-IV employee, and that she voluntarily deserted the Appellant-Petitioner. Bringing the allegation of unchastity against the Respondent/opposite party, the Appellant-Petitioner contended, that the Respondent/opposite party was not pregnant at the time of leaving the marital home and that there being no cohabitation with the Appellant-Petitioner, after her leaving the marital home, the child born to her was not born through him. It was also alleged that the Respondent/opposite party played fraud with the Appellant-Petitioner by suppressing her actual age at the time of her marriage. It was also alleged that the Respondent/opposite party played fraud with the Appellant-Petitioner by suppressing her actual age at the time of her marriage. The Appellant-Petitioner, in his plaint, further alleged that the Respondent/opposite party, who was a teacher of a School, insisted upon the Appellant-Petitioner to live separately from his sister and mother and the Respondent/opposite party by her wilful separate living, deprived the Appellant-Petitioner from enjoying the happiness of conjugal life and thereby caused sufferings to the Appellant-Petitioner. Hence, the Appellant-Petitioner prayed for dissolution of marriage by way of divorce. 3. Contesting the claim, made by the Appellant-Petitioner and refuting the allegations made against her, the Respondent/opposite party filed a written statement. In her written statement, the Respondent/opposite party, while denying all the allegations made against her, submitted that she never treated her husband and the members of his family with cruelty and that she never voluntarily deserted the Appellant-Petitioner. Regarding the allegation of suppression of age, the Respondent/opposite party contended that her marriage being a socially arranged marriage, nothing was suppressed from the Appellant-Petitioner and the members of his family and as such the allegation of suppressing the age was baseless. She further contended, in her written statement, that after the marriage, the Appellant-Petitioner, his mother, his brother and sister, demanded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a Scooter, from the father of the Respondent/opposite party and due to inability of the Respondent/opposite party's father to pay the said amount, the Appellant-Petitioner and the members of his family used to assault and abuse her in foul language, causing misery and anxiety to her. It was also contended that she was deprived from proper food and clothings and that the Appellant-Petitioner also made an attempt to kill her. It was also alleged, that the Appellant-Petitioner made an attempt to abort the pregnancy of the Respondent/opposite party but she somehow managed to avoid the said attempt. According to the Respondent/opposite party, being unable to bear the torture, she was compelled to take shelter in the house of her parents with effect from 20.10.1990. Denying the allegation brought against her chastity, the Respondent/opposite party stated, in her written statement, that at the time of leaving the marital home, she was pregnant for more than four months. According to the Respondent/opposite party, being unable to bear the torture, she was compelled to take shelter in the house of her parents with effect from 20.10.1990. Denying the allegation brought against her chastity, the Respondent/opposite party stated, in her written statement, that at the time of leaving the marital home, she was pregnant for more than four months. She also denied the allegation of desertion and contended that even after the birth of her said child, she met the Appellant-Petitioner when the latter was undergoing treatment in connection with a Scooter accident and on being requested by the Appellant-Petitioner, she went to the marital home along with her child for the purpose of leading a marital life with the Appellant-Petitioner, but the other family members of the Appellant-Petitioner refused to accept her, for which the Appellant-Petitioner had sent her to a rented house at Gosaigaon with an assurance that he would be joining her soon, but the Appellant-Petitioner failed to keep his words. The Respondent/opposite party, in her written statement, contended, that she was all along ready to live with the Appellant-Petitioner and that she was not willing to snap the relationship with the latter. 4. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial Judge, framed the following issues: (1) Whether there is any cause of action? (2) Whether any fraud was done by the Respondent and her guardian in respect of her age? (3) Whether the Petitioner of Respondent treated with cruelty to either of the parties? (4) Whether the Petitioner is the father of the female child born from the womb of the Respondent? (5) Whether the Petitioner and his mother and sister demanded Rs. 15,000/- to purchase a scooter ? (6) Whether the Petitioner sent the Respondent to Gosaigaon at the rented house there and put him in that house through his brother? (7) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get dissolution of marriage with the Respondent? (8) To what reliefs the parties are entitled? 5. In order to establish his case, the Appellant-Petitioner examined as many as five witnesses including himself. The Respondent/opposite party also examined four witnesses including herself. 6. (7) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get dissolution of marriage with the Respondent? (8) To what reliefs the parties are entitled? 5. In order to establish his case, the Appellant-Petitioner examined as many as five witnesses including himself. The Respondent/opposite party also examined four witnesses including herself. 6. Considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge came to the finding that the Appellant-Petitioner failed to establish the allegations of cruelty, chastity and desertion, brought against the Respondent opposite party and thus, failed to make out a case for dissolution of marriage. Accordingly, the learned District Judge dismissed the suit on contest, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of dismissal of the suit, the Appellant-Petitioner has come up with this appeal on the ground that the learned trial Judge failed to properly appreciate and scrutinize the evidence on record and that the learned trial Judge committed illegality by refusing to grant a decree of divorce as prayed for. Notice being issued, the Respondent/opposite party failed to appear. 7. We have heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Petitioner and perused the record. None has appeared for the Respondent/opposite party. 8. Mr. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Petitioner, taking us through the evidence on record as well as the pleadings of the parties, has submitted that, though the Appellant-Petitioner adduced sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation of cruelty, desertion, fraud regarding suppression of age of the Respondent/opposite party at the time of marriage and also against the chastity of the Respondent/opposite party, the learned trial Judge committed error by failing to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. The learned Counsel, referring to the allegation of cruelty, has submitted that the Respondent/opposite party used to misbehave and insult the Appellant-Petitioner by saying that the Appellant-Petitioner was a non-matriculate and a fourth grade employee. It is also submitted that the Respondent/opposite party insulted the Appellant-Petitioner by catching the collar of his shirt and that she insisted upon him for living separately from his sister and mother. It is also submitted that the Respondent/opposite party insulted the Appellant-Petitioner by catching the collar of his shirt and that she insisted upon him for living separately from his sister and mother. Supporting the allegation, brought against the chastity of the Respondent/opposite party, the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner, submitted that the Respondent/opposite party left the marital home after about two months from her marriage and that at the time of leaving her husband, she was not pregnant, therefore, it is submitted that the child born to the Respondent/opposite party during her stay in her parents house was not born through the Appellant-Petitioner. It is also submitted, on behalf of the Appellant-Petitioner, that the Respondent/opposite party, without any sufficient reason, deserted the Appellant-Petitioner in 1990 and that she has been living separately since then. 9. From the submissions, made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner and perusing the pleadings, it transpires that the Appellant-Petitioner brought the suit on three primary grounds i.e. (1) cruelty against the Appellant-Petitioner, (2) deserting the Appellant-Petitioner for more than two years and (3) having illicit sexual relationship leading to the birth of a child of Respondent/opposite party. The said three grounds taken by the Appellant-Petitioner, are the ground Nos. (i), (i-a) and (i-b) prescribed by Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. 10. In order to appreciate the submission advanced by the learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellant-Petitioner and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we feel it appropriate to, briefly, recapitulate the evidence on record. 11. The Appellant-Petitioner, deposing as P.W. 1, stated that though the Respondent/opposite party was older than the Appellant-Petitioner at the time of marriage, the said fact was suppressed from the Appellant-Petitioner, that the Respondent/opposite party insisted upon the Appellant-Petitioner to stay in a rented house at Gosaigaon, which request he did not accept on the ground that he could not leave his mother. The Appellant-Petitioner, in his evidence, further stated that the Respondent/opposite party used to pick up quarrel with him regularly and that she had once caught the collar of his shirt. He further stated that the Respondent/opposite party used to tell him that he was a fourth grade employee and as such he did not know anything. The Appellant-Petitioner, in his evidence, further stated that the Respondent/opposite party used to pick up quarrel with him regularly and that she had once caught the collar of his shirt. He further stated that the Respondent/opposite party used to tell him that he was a fourth grade employee and as such he did not know anything. According to the Appellant-Petitioner, though the Respondent/opposite party had left the marital home after two months from the marriage, she again came back to the Appellant-Petitioner at the time of Biswakarma puja and thereafter, on the following day, she left the marital home. The Appellant-Petitioner further stated that at the time of leaving the marital home, the Respondent/opposite party was not pregnant and that later on he came to know that she had delivered a baby. He also stated, in his evidence given as P.W. 1, that the Respondent/opposite party used to threaten him saying that she would lead a life of a widow by killing him. He denied the suggestion that the child was born through him. He also denied the suggestion that he had demanded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the parents of the Respondent/opposite party. However, he admitted that he had cohabited with the Respondent/opposite party in the house of her parents in the month of April, 1990. The Appellant-Petitioner further admitted that in 1991, when he met with a Scooter accident, the Respondent/opposite party met him along with her child. 12. Sri Sudhir Barman, deposing as P.W. 2, stated that the Respondent/opposite party had left her marital home after two months from the marriage and that she wanted to live separately with her husband at Gosaigaon in a rented house. This witness did not state anything regarding ill treatment or cruelty committed by the Respondent/opposite party. 13. Smti Sinubala Barman, deposing as P.W. 3, stated that once she visited the house of the Appellant-Petitioner and heard the Respondent/opposite party asking the Appellant-Petitioner to live separately at Gosaigaon. She further stated that as the Appellant-Petitioner had replied that he would not be able to leave his sister and mother, the Respondent/opposite party caught the collar of the shirt of the Appellant-Petitioner and asked him as to why the Appellant-Petitioner had married her. She also stated that the Respondent/opposite party had abused the Appellant-Petitioner by saying that he used to do a small job. She also stated that the Respondent/opposite party had abused the Appellant-Petitioner by saying that he used to do a small job. From the evidence of P.W. 3, it appears that she had seen the Respondent/opposite party catching the collar of the shirt of Appellant-Petitioner once only. Except the said incidence, she did not state anything against the Respondent/opposite party regarding cruelty and ill treatment towards the Appellant-Petitioner. 14. Sri Pijush Kanti Pal, deposing as P.W. 4, stated that after about 2-3 months of their marriage, the Respondent/opposite party wanted to stay in a rented house at Gosaigaon, but the Appellant-Petitioner refused to do so. He further stated that the Appellant-Petitioner occasionally informed him that the wife of Appellant-Petitioner used to quarrel with the latter on the issue of staying in a rented house at Gosaigaon. This witness also did not state anything about the cruel treatment meted out by the Respondent/opposite party. From the evidence of this witness, it is found that the root cause of quarrel/dispute between the said couple was the insistence of the Respondent/opposite party to live separately at Gosaigaon. 15. Sri Lalit Roy, deposing as P.W. 5, stated that the Respondent/opposite party had left the Appellant-Petitioner's house after about two months from the marriage. This witness also did not state anything about insulting the Appellant-Petitioner or treating the latter with cruelty. 16. From the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, it is found that the Respondent/opposite party had once caught the collar of shirt of the Appellant-Petitioner, that too, in the hit of a quarrel between the husband and wife, on the issue of separate living at Gosaigaon. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3. reveal that the Respondent/opposite party had caught the collar of the shirt of the Appellant-Petitioner on being aggrieved and annoyed by the refusal of her husband to live separately with her at Gosaigaon. In our considered opinion, the said single incident of catching the collar of the shirt of the husband by his wife is nothing but a stray incident. P.W. 3 further stated that in the said incident, the Respondent/opposite party had also abused the Appellant-Petitioner by saying that he used to do a small job. In our considered opinion, the said single incident of catching the collar of the shirt of the husband by his wife is nothing but a stray incident. P.W. 3 further stated that in the said incident, the Respondent/opposite party had also abused the Appellant-Petitioner by saying that he used to do a small job. None of the other prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5, supported the contention of the Appellant-Petitioner that the Respondent/opposite party had either insulted him or assaulted him regularly, making his life unbearable. P.W. 5 stated that the Appellant-Petitioner informed him that his wife wanted him to stay separately at Gosaigaon. In our considered opinion, if the Respondent/opposite party had assaulted the Appellant-Petitioner or treated him with cruelty, the Appellant-Petitioner would have certainly informed the P.W. 5. The silence of P.W. 5 in this regard negates the Appellant-Petitioner's contention that he was assaulted or treated with cruelty. What the Appellant-Petitioner told to P.W. 5 was that the Respondent/opposite party wanted him to live separately. In view of the above, we find no sufficient corroboration/support in favour of the contention of the Appellant-Petitioner that the Respondent/opposite party used to treat him with cruelty. Even if the Appellant-Petitioner's statement that his wife had insisted him saying that he was Grade-IV employee, none of the prosecution witnesses, examined by the Appellant-Petitioner supported the Appellant-Petitioner's contention that the Respondent/opposite party used to regularly insult the Appellant-Petitioner in the said way. Rather, D.W. 3, Sri Bhupati Roy and D.W. 4, Smti Ashari Bala Roy, supported the Respondent/opposite party's contention that the Appellant-Petitioner and the members of his family used to assault and torture the Respondent/opposite party. As the Appellant-Petitioner brought the allegation of cruelty i.e. ill treatment and misbehaviour, it was his burden to prove the said allegations. In order to seek divorce on the ground of cruelty the Appellant-Petitioner is required to prove that due to the alleged treatment meted out to the Appellant-Petitioner, it is not possible to continue with the married life. Though cruelty has not been defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, it must be established by the Appellant-Petitioner that the conduct of the Respondent/opposite party is not safe for the life, limb or health of the Appellant-Petitioner. Though cruelty has not been defined under the Hindu Marriage Act, it must be established by the Appellant-Petitioner that the conduct of the Respondent/opposite party is not safe for the life, limb or health of the Appellant-Petitioner. In the case of Parveen Mehta v. Inderjit Mehta reported in (2002) 5 SCC 706 , the Supreme Court, referring to the term 'cruelty', observed as follows: 21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(i-a) is to be taken as a behaviour by one spouse towards the other, which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty, mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehaviour in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take, the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the Petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other. 17. In view of the above principle of law and the evidence as discussed above, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we find no difficulty to hold that the Appellant-Petitioner failed to establish that the conduct of the Respondent/opposite party was not safe for the Appellant-Petitioner both physically and mentally. Such type of wear and tear, as alleged by the Petitioner, in the family life can't be treated as cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Such type of wear and tear, as alleged by the Petitioner, in the family life can't be treated as cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, we conclude that the Appellant-Petitioner failed to establish the allegation of cruelty brought against the Respondent/opposite party. 18. Though the Appellant-Petitioner contended, that at the time of settlement of their marriage, the Respondent/opposite party had suppressed her age, the Respondent/opposite party-wife, who deposed as D.W. 1, stated that her marriage was arranged by negotiation, after due enquiry, made by the members of the family of the Appellant-Petitioner. Admittedly, the Respondent/opposite party was a School teacher, therefore, there was no difficulty for the Appellant-Petitioner to know the actual age of the Respondent/opposite party, if he so desired. The Appellant-Petitioner also, in his evidence given as P.W. 1, stated that before the marriage, he along with his mother and sister had met the Respondent/opposite party. There is nothing on record to show that the Respondent/opposite party had made any misrepresentation or fraud with regard to her age. The apart, except bringing the allegation of suppressing her age by the Respondent/opposite party, the Appellant-Petitioner could not substantiate the said allegation of playing fraud by adducing sufficient evidence. Therefore, we feel inclined to hold that the Appellant-Petitioner failed to establish that the Respondent/opposite party had played any fraud with the Appellant-Petitioner by suppressing her age at the time of marriage. 19. Regarding the allegation of desertion, brought against the Respondent/opposite party, the Appellant-Petitioner (P.W. 1) stated that the Respondent/opposite party had left the marital home after about two months of their marriage and that she wanted him to live with her in a rented house at Gosaigaon. P.W. 1 further stated that, even after the said leaving of marital home, by the Respondent/opposite party, the later again came to her husband on the day of Biswakarma puja and left on the next day. He also admitted, in his cross-examination, that in 1991, when he met with an accident, the Respondent/opposite party met him along with her child. Therefore, from the evidence of the Appellant-Petitioner himself (P.W. 1), it transpires that, even after leaving the marital home, after two months from the marriage, the Respondent/opposite party used to visit/meet the Appellant-Petitioner till 1991 i.e. when the Respondent/opposite party met with an accident. Therefore, from the evidence of the Appellant-Petitioner himself (P.W. 1), it transpires that, even after leaving the marital home, after two months from the marriage, the Respondent/opposite party used to visit/meet the Appellant-Petitioner till 1991 i.e. when the Respondent/opposite party met with an accident. This admission, on the part of the Appellant-Petitioner, indicates that the Respondent/opposite party did not desert the Appellant-Petitioner, but she wanted to live with him, separately, in a rented house. The Respondent/opposite party, in her evidence given as D.W. 1, stated that, before the birth of her child, she went to the marital home and stayed there till 20.10.1990. She further stated that, in 1991, the Appellant-Petitioner met with an accident and she went to see him in the hospital along with her minor daughter and thereafter, she went with the Appellant-Petitioner to the latter's house and stayed there for about 19 days. She also stated that the Appellant-Petitioner had kept her in a rented house at Gosaigaon. The Respondent/opposite party, in her evidence, categorically stated that she was willing to live with her husband. The Respondent/opposite party was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Appellant-Petitioner. No suggestion was put to the Respondent/opposite party denying her evidence, that, in 1991, she had met the Appellant-Petitioner in the hospital, that she went to the Appellant-Petitioner's house and stayed there for 19 days, that the Appellant-Petitioner had named their daughter as 'Rinki', that the Appellant-Petitioner had arranged a rented house for the Respondent/opposite party at Gosaigaon. In view of the above, it is found that the evidence of Respondent/opposite party that, in 1991 also, she went to her marital home to live with the Appellant-Petitioner and that the Appellant-Petitioner had kept her in a rented house at Gosaigaon stood established. That apart, her contention that she was all along ready and willing to live with her husband i.e. the Appellant-Petitioner, remained unshaken. According to the Appellant-Petitioner also the Respondent/opposite party wanted him to live with her in a rented house i.e. away from other members of the family of the Appellant-Petitioner. This evidence sufficiently indicates that the Respondent/opposite party had no intention to leave the Appellant-Petitioner permanently. 20. According to the Appellant-Petitioner also the Respondent/opposite party wanted him to live with her in a rented house i.e. away from other members of the family of the Appellant-Petitioner. This evidence sufficiently indicates that the Respondent/opposite party had no intention to leave the Appellant-Petitioner permanently. 20. In view of the categorical statement made by the Respondent/opposite party that she was willing and ready to live with the Appellant-Petitioner, coupled with the Appellant-Petitioner's contention that the Respondent/opposite party wanted him to live with her in a rented house, it inspire sufficient confidence to believe that the Respondent/opposite party had no intention to abandon the Appellant-Petitioner or to cease cohabitation permanently. Desertion is a total repudiation of the obligation of marriage or abandonment of the spouse with an intention to bring cohabitation permanently to end. Mere separation between the two spouses does not amount to desertion. In order to establish desertion, as a ground of divorce, it must be established that the alleged desertion was active or wilful termination of an existing cohabitation, express or implied of the party alleging desertion. In such a case the Appellant-Petitioner is required to prove that desertion was without just cause and that the Respondent/opposite party wanted to permanently bring an end to the cohabitation. In our present case, the Respondent/opposite party categorically stated that she was willing to live with the Appellant-Petitioner and the Appellant-Petitioner also admitted that the Respondent/opposite party wanted him to live with her in a rented house. Therefore, there is no sufficient material to find that the Respondent/opposite party wanted to terminate the cohabitation or company of the Appellant-Petitioner permanently. In the light of the above discussion and keeping in mind the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellant-Petitioner failed to establish the allegation that his wife i.e. the Respondent/opposite party had deserted him. 21. Another ground taken by the Appellant-Petitioner was that the child born to the Respondent/opposite party, was not born out of the wedlock of the marriage with the Respondent/opposite party. Admittedly, the marriage of the Appellant-Petitioner, with the Respondent/opposite party, was solemnized on 22.04.1990 and, thereafter, they used to live in the marital home as husband and wife. According to the Appellant-Petitioner, the opposite party left the marital home after about two months from the date of marriage i.e. some time in the last part of June, 1990. Admittedly, the marriage of the Appellant-Petitioner, with the Respondent/opposite party, was solemnized on 22.04.1990 and, thereafter, they used to live in the marital home as husband and wife. According to the Appellant-Petitioner, the opposite party left the marital home after about two months from the date of marriage i.e. some time in the last part of June, 1990. The Respondent/opposite party contended that she came back to the Appellant-Petitioner on the day of Biswakarma puja also. She further stated that, at the time of leaving the marital home, she had carried pregnancy of four months. The Respondent/opposite party also stated that she consulted a physician at Kokrajhar in connection with her pregnancy and that she delivered the baby in the 10th month of her pregnancy. She categorically stated that she got pregnant in the month of June, 1990 and that she delivered the baby on 04.04.1991. As the Respondent-opposite party left the marital home after two months from the date of her marriage, as alleged by the Appellant-Petitioner, there is force in her contention that she got pregnant in the month of June, 1990 i.e. during her stay in her marital home. The delivery of the baby on 04.04.1991 also suggest that the pregnancy took place in the month of June, 1990. Dr. A. Narzaiy, under whom the Respondent/opposite party took treatment in connection with her pregnancy, deposed as D.W. 2. Dr. Narzary clearly stated that on 09.01.1991, he examined the Respondent/opposite party in his chamber and detected that she was carrying pregnancy of 24 weeks on that day. The said Medical Officer determined the expected date of delivery as 05.04.1991. The medical evidence, that the Respondent/opposite party had a fetus of 24 weeks pregnancy on 09.01.1991 i.e. on the date of her examination by the Medical Officer, clearly suggest that she got pregnant some time in the month of June, 1990. This indicates that she got pregnant during her stay in her marital home. That apart, in view of the above, though the Respondent/opposite party was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Appellant-Petitioner, no suggestion was put to her denying her evidence that there was cohabitation during her stay in her husband's house, that she got pregnant in the month of June, 1990, that the child was born after 10 months of pregnancy. That apart, in view of the above, though the Respondent/opposite party was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Appellant-Petitioner, no suggestion was put to her denying her evidence that there was cohabitation during her stay in her husband's house, that she got pregnant in the month of June, 1990, that the child was born after 10 months of pregnancy. Therefore, her evidence that she got pregnant during her stay in her marital home and that she was carrying pregnancy of four months at the time of leaving her husband remained undemolished. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Appellant-Petitioner failed to prove the allegation that the child was not born through him and that the Respondent/opposite party got pregnant after leaving the Appellant-Petitioner and without having any cohabitation with him. Hence, the allegation of unchastity could not be proved. 22. In the light of the above discussion, we find that the Appellant-Petitioner miserably failed to prove the allegations of cruelty, fraud, desertion and illicit sexual relationship, brought against the Respondent/opposite party. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned trial Judge committed no error or illegality by refusing to grant divorce as prayed for by the Appellant-Petitioner. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Return the case records. Appeal dismissed.