Judgment : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE,J. FACTS Facts are somewhat shameful. This may also be termed as a relentless fight of a minor girl who ultimately became successful in life. The brave girl Gouri, the appellant above named unfortunately took her birth in the womb of her mother Purna Laxmi Roy, a Group-D staff in a Health Home at Alipurduar. Purna Laxmi got acquainted with Balai alias Asish Mohanta, the respondent above named. They became friendly. On February 13, 1991 Purna Laxmi gave marriage to her minor daughter Gouri who was studying in school. She was fifteen years old at that time. The couple resided in a rented house for a month. Balai was doing nothing and used to inflict torture upon Gouri. Soon they shifted to the hospital quarter belonging to Purna Laxmi. Purna Laxmi was maintaining them. She was rather akin to Balai despite Gouri being tortured by him. Gouri started her battle. She continued her study by making arrangement of her own through private tuition. She got Government stipend to continue her education. She gave birth to her only son Avijit Mohanta who was reading in class VIII when Gouri filed the suit for dissolution of marriage. Gouri completed her post -graduation and B.Ed. bearing continued torture from Balai. She was maintaining herself as also her son, side by side continuing study for both. Balai used to do odd jobs at the time of filing of the suit. He was working as a helper of one doctor called Dr. Asish Mukherjee at Alipurduar. Ultimately Gouri succeeded to get a decent job. In 2003 she served Zilla Parisad as a contracted employee and was also working as a part-time lecturer in Vivekananda College at Alipurduar. She shifted to a rented house near Vivekananda College with her son. Balai continued to disturb them. He was frequent in visiting her house demanding money. She was threatened with dire consequence. Torture being unbearable, she approached the learned Judge by filing Matrimonial Suit No.37 of 2004. At that time she was a part-time lecturer in Vivekananda College. Balai filed a written statement. He denied all the allegations. He denied torture being inflicted on her. He was a bus conductor earning rupees three thousand five hundred per month and he was maintaining his wife and son. On his encouragement, Gouri could complete her education. At that time she was a part-time lecturer in Vivekananda College. Balai filed a written statement. He denied all the allegations. He denied torture being inflicted on her. He was a bus conductor earning rupees three thousand five hundred per month and he was maintaining his wife and son. On his encouragement, Gouri could complete her education. He was earning Rs.4000/--5000/-per month working as a Technician under Dr. Mukherjee. He repeatedly requested Gouri to come back that she flatly denied. He however continued to maintain his duties towards his wife and son. Gouri was consistent in her affidavit evidence. She contended that she had repeatedly told her husband to live separately leaving the hospital quarter which he had blatantly refused. She also deposed, her husband continued to disturb her even at the time of filing of the affidavit evidence. During oral examination she contended, she got regular job as an Assistant Teacher in Siliguri Hakimpara Girls High School with effect from April 23, 2005. She also filed her Backward Class Certificate issued by the Government. In 1991 she had been reading in class XI. Her elder brother Prasenjit and younger brother Kalyan were Government employees. She denied about the encouragement of her husband for continuing studies. Her maternal uncle Monindra Barman deposed as PW-2. According to Monindra, Gouri was inflicted torture both physically and mentally. His son Avijit Mohanta deposed as PW-3. He was sixteen years old at the time of adducing evidence. He blatantly denied, his father never tortured her mother. Balai examind himself as DW-1 where he was consistent with his written statement. He deposed that had read up to class-VIII. Surprisingly, Purna Laxmi deposed as DW-2. She flatly denied that Balai had been inflicting torture upon her daughter Gouri. She also deposed that her sons had been residing separately. She admitted that she had given marriage to her daughter Gouri with Balai in absence of her sons. During cross-examination, the learned Judge recorded that the lady admitted that Gouri was her own daughter and then said, she was the daughter of her husband Ranjit Roy. On the strength of the above evidence, the learned Judge dismissed the suit that gave rise to the present appeal. The learned Judge observed that the question of cruelty, torture or financial crisis as alleged by the petitioner did not arise at all. On the strength of the above evidence, the learned Judge dismissed the suit that gave rise to the present appeal. The learned Judge observed that the question of cruelty, torture or financial crisis as alleged by the petitioner did not arise at all. According to the learned Judge, at the time of marriage Balai was a bus conductor and then engaged himself as a Technician under Dr. Mukherjee earning Rs.4000/- - 5000/- per month and supported the educational expenses of the petitioner. The learned Judge recorded the rival contentions of the parties and held it as follows :- “Thus, after hearing both sides and perusal the evidence on record and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation in my mind to agree with the submission of the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, I hold that petitioner was never threatened with cruelty or deserted by the respondent/husband. So these issues are decided against the petitioner. In view of aforesaid decision, the petitioner is not entitled to get the decree of divorce in accordance with the provision of Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.” The judgment would not show any discussion made by the learned Judge on the evidence and/or rival contentions of the parties. We tried in vain to find out the logic that could be the basis of ultimate rejection of the prayer for divorce. Being aggrieved, Gouri filed the appeal on December 3, 2007. Mr. Debabrata Roy, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent. The learned Judge admitted the appeal and directed expeditious hearing. Subsequently, Mr. Roy retired from the matter. After the filing of the Paper Book, the Appeal started appearing in the list when Mr. Hironmoy Bhattacharya appeared for the respondent. Mr. Bhattacharya expressed his inability to appear in absence of instruction. The Division Bench directed administrative notice to be served. Such order was passed on March 22, 2011. Since then repeated attempts were made to serve the respondent who was avoiding service. Repeated orders were passed in this regard. The department submitted its report on March 28, 2012 that the undelivered packet had come back with the remark “long time absent returned to sender”. Mr. Biswajit Basu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant prayed for leave to file affidavit. Accordingly, Gouri filed an affidavit on March 30, 2012. Repeated orders were passed in this regard. The department submitted its report on March 28, 2012 that the undelivered packet had come back with the remark “long time absent returned to sender”. Mr. Biswajit Basu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant prayed for leave to file affidavit. Accordingly, Gouri filed an affidavit on March 30, 2012. From the affidavit it appears that Balai was avoiding service. According to Gouri, he was still residing at Alipurduar Sub-Divisional Hospital Staff quarter and staying with her mother. On the strength of the said affidavit we took up the hearing ex-parte. We also allowed her application to disclose xerox copy of the admit card that would show that her date of birth was October 12, 1975. CONTENTIONS We heard Mr. Biswajit Basu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Mr. Basu contended, the facts would depict a continuous oppression by the husband on the wife that too, from the day one. She was given marriage while she was minor. She gave birth to a son out of the said wedlock. She continued her battle to educate herself and her son and got herself well placed in life. Even at the time of her deposition, she would make complaint of consistent torture being inflicted by Balai. Hence, she was entitled to a Decree of Divorce. OUR VIEW In a matrimonial proceeding it was the pious, moral and legal duty of the Court to examine at all stages a possibility of reconciliation and preferably for a reunion. We did not get such advantage in view of indifferent attitude on the part of the husband, Balai. He changed his lawyer twice as we find from the record. He continued avoiding service. Even the administrative notice came back. Hence, we had no other opportunity but to proceed ex-parte. From facts as discussed above, we could imagine, with great constraints Gouri could approach the Court of Law. It was her lone fight not only against her erring husband but also against someone who brought her in this world. For a girl, her mother could be the only last respite in case of all odds. When her mother would deny her support it would be a total loss of all hopes. Even then the brave girl continued her fight not only for her own self but also for her lone child who is still with her mother. For a girl, her mother could be the only last respite in case of all odds. When her mother would deny her support it would be a total loss of all hopes. Even then the brave girl continued her fight not only for her own self but also for her lone child who is still with her mother. We would expect her to continue to do so. Even if we consciously ignore the insinuation about the relationship of Purna Laxmi possibly had with Balai, it would be very much difficult for us to put it under the carpet successfully. Gouri tried for long. However, she revolted after becoming successful to have a concrete step in this materialistic world where she could stand not only for herself but also her minor son. She approached the learned Judge. The learned Judge possibly overlooked her spirit. The learned Judge possibly could not read her evidence in its true spirit that resulted in miscarriage of justice. The learned Judge did not discuss the evidence at all. The only reasoning which we could find out in the order and/or decree impugned as quoted above, the learned Judge accepted the argument of Balai and thus rejected the prayer for divorce. The basis of such acceptance was however lacking. In our view, it was a fit and proper case where the learned Judge should have signed a Decree of Divorce. Continued fight of a lady that was corroborated by her own maternal uncle, the brother of Purna Laxmi and her son Avijit could not be shaken in cross-examination. Such consistent evidence was sufficient enough to decree the suit. RESULT The Appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of dismissal of the Matrimonial Suit No.37 of 2004 is set aside. The Matrimonial Suit No.37 of 2004 is allowed. There would be a decree of divorce as prayed for by the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with any order as to costs. DIRECTION The Registry is directed to send down the lower court record at once, if received by this time. Urgent Photostat copy will be given to the parties, if applied for. Shukla Kabir (Sinha), J. I agree.