Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 80 (GAU)

Anima Sinha v. Ranjit Kr. Sinha

2011-02-01

MADAN B.LOKUR, MAIBAM B.K.SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 29.3.2003 passed by the Addi. Deputy Commissioner, NC Hills, Haflong in TS Case No. 6 of 2000. 2. The Appellant/wife had filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that her husband/Respondent was suffering from some mental disorder and treating with cruelty. 3. By the order under appeal the Addl. Deputy Commissioner declined to pro tit a divorce as prayed for. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellant with has filed this Appeal, The matter has been on the list for quite sortie time and learned Counsel for the Respondent/husband had earlier informed us that she had not win able to get instructions from her client despite her best efforts. Even today she says that she has not been able to obtain instructions from her client. 5. Under the circumstances we have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant/wife and gone through the evidence on record. 6. At the outset learned Counsel for the Appellant/wife frankly says that he does not press this petition for divorce on the ground of mental disorder of the Respondent/husband. However, he reaffirms that the Appellant/wife has been treated with cruelty and it is, therefore, not possible for her to live with him. 7. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner rejected the case of the Appellant/wife only on the ground that during her cross-examination she had stated that she loved her husband and there had been no quarrel between her and her husband. He also relied on the statement given by the Appellant/wife that during her illness her husband used to give her some medicine. From these facts, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner concluded that there is a normal relationship between the parties and even if there were occasional quarrels between them, it would be the normal wear and tear of matrimonial life and would not amount to cruelty. 8. We are of the opinion that the Addl. Deputy Commissioner has taken a few selective portions of the evidence for (sic) to his conclusion. On a reading of the evidence as a whole, it appears that the Appellant/wife was not allowed to talk to anyone when the couple was living in a rented house in Boildura from some time in October 1999. Forcible and complete withdrawal of the Appellant/wife from society by the Respondent/husband amounts to being cruel to her. On a reading of the evidence as a whole, it appears that the Appellant/wife was not allowed to talk to anyone when the couple was living in a rented house in Boildura from some time in October 1999. Forcible and complete withdrawal of the Appellant/wife from society by the Respondent/husband amounts to being cruel to her. Additionally, we also find that the Respondent/husband used to physically torture the Appellant/wife by pressing her neck, beating her up, etc. The evidence shows that when the Appellant/wife used to return from her office, the Respondent/husband used to search her clothes since he suspected her of having some relations with other male persons. 9. In the cross-examination the Respondent/husband has not been able to demolish any of the allegations made by the Appellant/wife to the effect that she was being treated in an abusive manner through physical result and allegations were made against her of infidelity. 10. The mother of the Appellant/wife also entered the witness box and supported the ease made out by her daughter to the effect that she had complained on several occasions that she was hit and beaten up by her husband. She has also confirmed the allegation made by the Appellant/wife that the Respondent/husband was suspicious about her conduct' and used to check her clothes and thereafter beat her up. 11. Consistent suspicion by the Respondent/husband of his wife's (sic) and physically assaults from time-to-time has made it impossible for her to live with the Respondent/husband. In fact, we are told by Learned Counsel for the Appellant/wife that the parties have been living separately since May 2000 onwards. 12. Apart from the fact that the marriage is completely dead we also are the of the opinion that the Respondent/husband had treated the Appellant/ (sic) such cruelty as to make it impossible for her to live with him as (sic) It is for this reason that the Appellant/wife stated on oath that (sic) matrimonial home. The Appellant/wife says that she is able (sic) after herself and her child with the salary she is getting. 13. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that on an overall consideration of the evidence on record, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (sic) to grantee divorce to the Appellant/wife on the ground (sic) we accordingly set aside the order passed by the Addl. 13. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that on an overall consideration of the evidence on record, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner (sic) to grantee divorce to the Appellant/wife on the ground (sic) we accordingly set aside the order passed by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner on 29.3.2003 and dissolve the marriage between the (sic) by a decree of divorce. 14. Since there is no dispute about the custody of the child between the parties, the child will continue to live with the Appellant/wife. 15. The appeal is allowed. The trial court' Records be sent back immediately. Appeal allowed.