JUDGEMENT - TRIAL COURT.

ANNEXURE A-12 //True Copy//




In the Court of District Judge, Korba (Chhattisgarh)

Presiding justice: R.S. Sharma

Civil Suit No. 37A/2004

Arup Gupta @ Anawar S/o. Late S.K. Gupta, aged about 47 years, Service in N.T.P.C. R/o.Wireless operator K.S.T.P.S, N.T.P.C. Jaminipali, Korba, District Korba. ...Applicant/complainant

Versus

Smt. Rama Gupta, aged about 50 years, D/o.P.K. Dasgupta

Occ. Teacher (Govt.), R/o. B-609 Yamuna Vihar, Jaminipali, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh ...Non-applicant/Opp.Party.



On behalf of the applicant/complainant– Arup Kumar Gupta

Applicant.

On behalf of non-applicant/respondent – Adv. V.K.Gupta.

JUDGMENT

(Pronounced today on 3rd December, 2004)

1. The applicant has filed this application for passing of the decree of dissolution with non-applicant Smt.Rama Dasgupta under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) and for declaring the marriage as null and void under Section 12(1)(c).

2. The admitted fact is this that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant Rama Dasgupta was solemnized on 8.5.1988 in Raigarh as per Hindu rites and rituals. It is also an admitted fact that after the marriage, applicant and non-applicant Rama Dasgupta were residing in the allotted House No. B 609, Block No.1, Yamuna Vihar, Jaminipali. It is also an admitted fact that, no child was born, in this wedlock of applicant and non-applicant as a result of their conjugal life. It is also an admitted fact that applicant filed an application earlier under Section 13(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur and it was registered as Civil Misc.Case No.19-A of 1993 and the application filed by the applicant was rejected by the Hon’ble High Court under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

3. The brief facts of the application of the applicant is like this that the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with non-applicant on 8.5.1988 in Raigarh, thereafter both the parties were residing in the house allotted to the applicant bearing House No.609, Block No.1, Yamuna Vihar, Jaminipali, Korba and both of them have resided together till January 1995.

Thereafter a serious dispute started arising between the parties and non-applicant had got the house vacated forcibly from the applicant. No child was born as a result of this wedlock of the applicant and non-applicant. Non-applicant started behaving fraudulently in married life. The brother and sister-in-law of the non-applicant wrote a letter to the applicant and stated that the age of the non-applicant Rama Dasgupta is 32 years whereas actually the date of birth of the non-applicant is 20.12.1950 and non-applicant was elder to the applicant and by concealing this fact the marriage of the non-applicant Rama Dasgupta solemnized with the applicant and by this way the consent of the marriage had been obtained by concealing the fact in fraudulent manner, and the age of the wife cannot be more than the age of the husband in Baisya community of Bengalis, therefore applicant is entitled to get the marriage declared as null and void under Section 12(c) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Non-applicant started behaving in cruel manner with applicant. Non-applicant Rama Dasgupta stated the applicant impotent, in presence of his parents, and which falls under the category of cruelty.

Non-applicant behaved in a cruel manner with applicant by tarnishing the prestige of the applicant by making some serious allegations towards the applicant by writing a letter in his office. The non-applicant had earlier filed a reply in respect of the application of the applicant under Section 13(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 where also the non-applicant had levelled serious allegations against the applicant which falls under the category of mental cruelty. Non-applicant compelled the applicant to leave his allotted house, and live separately. Applicant was compelled to leave the house only in one cloth and when applicant returned to collect his clothes after few days then pressure was puted upon by the non-applicant that he should permanently leave the house. whereas applicant had stated to the non-applicant that house has been allotted to the applicant, therefore she should vacate it, but non-applicant did not pay any attention to it and she was not ready to listen the applicant.

4. Non-applicant had burnt herself by fire and had started blackmailing the applicant and reported it too, to the police. By this way non-applicant regularly tortured the applicant, polluted the atmosphere treated the applicant with cruelty. As the applicant has been compelled to stay separately for more than two years due to the cruel treatment of nonapplicant Rama Dasgupta, therefore the applicant is entitled to get the

decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(b) of Hindu marriage Act, 1955.

5. It is also one of the ground in his petition that, on the basis of the applicant’s being Muslim, non-applicant ignore and neglect her husband due to his religion. Non-applicant wrote a letter to the officer of the applicant Shri A.K. Basile, Sr. Engineer on 12.10.1999 and in there also applicant was humiliated, and the brother of the non-applicant also made a complaint against the applicant before his officer and this act falls under the category of the cruelty. Non-applicant started the cruel behaviour in the married life since beginning, by her fraudulent act and she has been making an effort to put pressure upon the applicant deliberately for living him separately by writing a letter in the office of the applicant which falls under the category of mental cruelty and it is not possible for the applicant and non-applicant to continue the married life and it is not possible for them to live together and non-applicant made an allegation upon the applicant in regard to the valuable property and in this way non-applicant has been behaving in a cruel manner with the applicant and therefore applicant is entitled to live separately due to the cruel behaviour and conduct of non-applicant Rama Dasgupta and he is entitled to get the decree of dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the applicant should be allowed and decree for dissolution of marriage should be passed.

6. Non-applicant Rama Dasgupta has mentioned in her written statement that no cruel behaviour has been done by the non-applicant. Applicant himself left the disputed house and applicant has made false allegation upon the non-applicant and there is no such rule that in Bengali Baisya community, the age of the wife cannot be more than the age of the husband. No false information in regard to the age has been given by the non-applicant nor any kind of fraudulent act has been done against him. Applicant has illicit relation with another woman and due to that reason, the applicant is causing mental, physical and economic loss to the non-applicant Rama Dasgupta and is being deprived from the marital life and relationship. So far as the question of cruelty is concerned, the cruel behaviour is being done by the applicant with the non-applicant. Applicant filed a petition being Civil Suit No.19A/1993 under Section 13 and 12(1) of Hindu marriage Act, 1955 and the Revision Petition No.1924/95 filed by the applicant had been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on the ground of non-maintainability of the application. Applicant by crossing all the limits of the religion and customs, and despite being married, has established a illicit relation with another woman and wants to live separately from non-applicant by deliberately converting his religion. Applicant has never been stated to be impotent, by the non-applicant. The applicant has filed the case on false grounds and such situation are being created by the applicant by which non-applicant could be instigated to commit suicide and in this way such kind of cruel behaviour is being done by the applicant. Applicant is not entitled to get any kind of relief; therefore his application should be rejected.

7. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, following suit issues have been formulated and their findings have been shown in front of it :-

SUIT ISSUES FINDINGS

(1) Whether non-applicant Rama Not proved

Dasgupta, by played fraud

with the applicant Arup Kumar

that, her age less than Arup

Kumar, got married with him?

(2) Whether non-applicant Rama Not proved

Dasgupta treated applicant

With Cruelty?

(3) Whether non-applicant Rama Not proved

Dasgupta deserted the applicant

for more than two years before

the date of filing the case

without any cogent reason?



(4) Whether the applicant filed petition

under Section 12 & 13 of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 earlier before

the Court of IVth Addl.District

Judge, Bilaspur which was

rejected and its revision was

rejected by the Hon’ble High Court

on 27.8.96 therefore, whether the

case of the applicant is not mintenable - It was not disposed of





(5) Whether the applicant despite - Not proved

being with the non-applicant,

established illicit relationship

with another woman and from

her there is an issue?



(6) Relief and costs ? The application of the Applicant is rejected.



FINDINGS AND REASONS

SUIT ISSUE NO.1

8. The effort has been made on behalf of the applicant to state this that non-applicant Rama Dasgupta has played a fraud with him by concealing the fact of her age. The age of the non-applicant was more than the age of the applicant. She was approximately 37 years of age at the time of marriage whereas the age has been stated to be 32 years in the letter sent to the applicant. Non-applicant highly qualified woman and she was in service, therefore applicant married the non-applicant by believing on the facts stated by her and in this way the consent has been obtained by fraud and therefore applicant is entitled to get the marriage declared null and void under Section 12(1)(c) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Contrary to this, the non-applicant has discarded the allegations of the applicant.

9. It has been stated under Section 12(1)(c) that if the consent has been obtained by fraud in regard to the material fact, or in regard to the circumstances, then under such circumstances party can make an application for declaring the marriage null and void. But now it has to be seen whether actually the facts have been concealed on behalf of the non-applicant in regard to age?

10. Arup Kumar Gupta, (PW-5) has stated in para 1 of his statement that he had given an advertisement for marriage, on behalf of Rama Dasgupta by her elder brother Anup Dasgupta and his wife sent, its reply. In which the age of Rama Dasgupta has been stated as 32 years, and letter bears the date 1.12.87. But the date of birth mentioned in the Government record of the respondent was 20.12.1950 and his age was 37 years at the time of writing the letter Ext.P-1 and this fact has been concealed and in cross examination also this witness stated that, this is not true that respondent’s brother had not stated the age of the respondent as 32 years to the parents of the applicant. The age of the non-applicant Rama Dasgupta is not more than that of applicant,it is also not stated by non-applicant. This fact has not been refused by Karobi Gupta, PW-1, Meghdeep Gupta, PW-2 that the age of the respondent have been stated to be 32 years at the time of marriage and respondent’s brother Anup Dasgupta stated by writing an inland letter that the age of the respondent is 32 years. It appears from the statement of the witness of the plaintiff that, the age of non-applicant is less than the applicant. But it has to be seen whether any fraudulent behaviour has been done by the non-applicant, in this regard?

11. Arup Kumar Gupta, PW-5, applicant himself, stated in para 3 of his statement that respondent has considered herself to be married only on the basis of the marriage as per the rites and rituals. The cruelty of the respondent had been since beginning. She stated herself as a woman of 32 years whereas she was 37 years old. But Arup Kumar Gupta has admitted in para 8 of his cross-examination that he had seen the respondent by visiting her house. It is true that he had seen the respondent prior to the marriage. He had given the consent for the marriage with this understanding that the respondent to be a girl of 32 years of age. It is clear from the statement of Arup Kumar Gupta that prior to the marriage applicant Arup Kumar Gupta saw non-applicant Rama Dasgupta and thereafter married her. In this way the applicant had the sufficient scope to know about the non-applicant and even thereafter the consent of the marriage was given. Under this circumstances, the cruel behaviour done with the applicant by concealing the facts of age, cannot be accepted.

12. It has been stated in Section 12(2), Part-A, sub-para(1), part(c) that, (1) petition is presented more than one year after the force has been ceased to operate or fraud has been discovered; (2) Petitioner, after the force has been ceased or the fraud exposed, residing with respondent as husband or wife.

13. It is clear from the perusal of part(a) of Sub-para (2) that after the knowledge of the fraudulent facts, application should be filed within a period of one year for getting the marriage declared as null and void.

14. According to the applicant, his marriage has been solemnized with the non-applicant in May 1988 and applicant has stated in para 3 of his petition that the parties have been residing together by the end of January 1995. Arup Kumar Gupta has stated in para 2 of his statement that in October 1993 his mother had come to Jamnipali then respondent had told him impotent and application for divorce had been filed in the year 2000 and in this way it is clear that applicant and non-applicant have resided together as husband and wife from 1988 to 1995 and applicant Arup Kumar Gupta has not expressed in his statement that when he has actually got the information in regard to the age of the non-applicant whereas according to the petition both of them resided together till 1995. Rama Dasgupra, NAW-1 has been cross-examined by the applicant. She has stated in para 2 of her statement that after the marriage, they have been residing together in the same quarter till 1996–1997 as husband and wife and it has been stated in the statement that the marriage had been solemnized at Ramgarh and then they had gone to Kolkata and thereafter she started residing in the house of the applicant at Jamnipali after 15 days after his transfer and this witness has made statement in para 16 of the statement that it is wrong to say that she has played fraud. You know about her age since beginning, the entire document was with you and had gone to Gwalior also for taking out the money.

15. It is clear from the statement of the applicant Arup Kumar Gupta and non-applicant Rama Dasgupta that much prior to the filing of the petition, applicant was having the information with regard to the age of non-applicant Rama Dasgupta. Even thereafter, applicant is keeping non-applicant in the form of his wife and under such circumstances, the application has been

filed for declaring the marriage null and void one year after, having the knowledge of the facts of the fraud by the applicant which is not liable to be allowed and undisputedly in view of the provisions of para 12(1)(c)

of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the application of the applicant is time barred. It has not been proved by the applicant that non-applicant Rama Dasgupta had acted fraudulently in regard to her age and had deceived the applicant. As a result of it, the finding of the suit issue No.1, is given against the applicant in negative manner.

SUIT ISSUE NOS.2, 3 & 5

16. All these three issues are related to each other and therefore they are being disposed of together.

Applicant has filed 24 pages petition in which he has contended in details in regard to the cruelty and has made an effort to tell that the non-applicant has been treated cruelly with the applicant, and the non-applicant is living separately from applicant without any sufficient reason and without any cogent reason. Now, it has to be seen, whether the applicant has proved the fact of cruelty by solid evidence?

17. So far as question of cruelty concerned, cruelty cannot be proved only on the ground of the contention of husband and wife. Unless the contentions proved by the witnesses. In the petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty, only misunderstanding, or not having consonance, or uncontrolled temperament, in between the parties in matrimony, cannot be considered as the ground for cruelty. Now it has to be seen that, whether the solid evidences had been adduced by the applicant in regard to the cruelty and desertion? Effort has been made by applicant to tell this fact that, non-applicant put on fire by herself and filed a report against him. So far the question of put on fire by the non-applicant & proceeding against the applicant is concerned, it can come under the category of cruelty but this fact will have to be proved by evidence.

18. Arup das Gupta has stated in para 2 of his statement that his mother had come to his place Jamnipali in October 1993 then respondent had called him impotent in presence of his mother. Karobi Gupta, PW-1 has stated in her statement that plaintiff is her son and respondent is her daughter-in-law. She has stated in para 2 of her statement that, in October 1993 she was with plaintiff at Jamnipali. Respondent was also residing in Jamnipali. At that time respondent told her that, it is very particularly the applicant for

whom she is issueless. It is not expressed from the statement of Karobi Gupta that non-applicant Rama Dasgupta had stated the applicant impotent. The marriage between non-applicant and applicant solemnized in May 1988 and because of not having child till October 1993, this statement of non-applicant that, it is very particularly the applicant for whom she is issueless, is quite natural and this possibility cannot be ruled out that Karobi Gupta who is the mother-in-law of the non-applicant asked the non-applicant the cause of issuelessness for five years, then the non-applicant replied that, it is the applicant for whom she is issueless. On the basis of this fact and on the basis of this statement of non-applicant that, it is the applicant for whom she is issueless, do not prove that non-applicant had stated applicant to be impotent. In addition to that, no other evidence has been adduced by the applicant and only with the statement of the applicant, this finding cannot be arrived that non-applicant has committed cruelty with the applicant by stating him to be impotent.

19. Now it has to be seen that whether non-applicant Rama Dasgupta has committed mental cruelty by torturing the applicant by any other means? S. Vedraman (PW-3) has stated in Para 1 of his

statement that approximately 10 years ago, plaintiff had asked him shelter for living, as plaintiff was compelled to stay outside home due to the family reasons. But he did not state in detail, what was the problem. Then he stayed plaintiff at the place of his friend Murugan. Plaintiff remained there for 10-15 days. After few days his friend had expressed his inability to keep the plaintiff at his place due to his problem. S. Vedram who has adduced evidence on behalf of the plaintiff has not stated in his examination in chief about any reason in regard to separately living of plaintiff. This witness has not stated that applicant/plaintiff has been compelled to live separately due to the cruel behaviour of the non-applicant. On the contrary, this witness has stated in para 2 of his cross-examination that he did not have the knowledge of this fact that plaintiff asks the respondent to go out of his house, and as she does not want to go from there, then plaintiff himself left the house. It is true that, plaintiff did not come to take shelter at her place, he had not stated to Murugan regarding the dispute. It is true that employees get quarter in NTPC, and plaintiff has got the quarter and in this way it is not proved from the statement of the plaintiff witness Ved Raman that non-applicant/ respondent has ousted the plaintiff from house.

20. Arup Kumar Gupta, PW-5 has stated in para 4 of his statement that there was gradual change in the relation of the respondent and she started opposing everything, and it became difficult to live together. Then application had been filed for divorce. Respondent’s brother had given threat to kill him on 28.12.1994 whose report was lodged in the Darri Police

Station. It has been stated in para 5 of his statement that on 24.1.1995 at night respondent shouted fire,fire. As he and respondent were sleeping separately, then he went there and saw that respondent was sitting on the cot and had thrown the quilt over the heater and got the fire caught, whose report was lodged, which is Ext.P-3 and its photocopy is Ext.P-3/C. Non-applicant Rama Dasgupta had stated in para 18 of her statement that applicant has taken the shape of Muslim by keeping beard in big size, and kept the room heater near in the side of the cot due to which the fire caught in the quilt by mistake and he had gone to the hospital and thereafter he abscond from quarter, took medical book and told that he is making his case strong. By this way, non-applicant has admitted the fact of putting fire but non-applicant has stated that this fire had caught by mistake and under such circumstances, the contention of the applicant that non-applicant had put the fire for torturing the applicant or for implicating him is not proved.

21. On behalf of the applicant the contention which has been raised in the written statement filed by the non-applicant earlier, the effort has been made to tell in this regard that, non-applicant alleged an illicit relation with another woman, which falls under the category of cruelty. Also non-applicant do not have faith to the religion of the applicant and it comes under the category of mental cruelty. Now it has to be seen as to whether the contention which had been raised by the non-applicant in the written statement falls under the category of mental cruelty?

22. It has been decided in, Hanumant Rao vs. Ramani reported in 2000 (1) Manisha 20 (Supreme Court) that, the detailed meaning of mental cruelty is this, that, the level of torture will be so high that, it breaks the bond between the spouses, and as a result of that, it becomes impossible by the party victimised, will live with the other. In other words, it is beyond expectation that, the party victimised, will live with - the party who is in error, though it has been laid down in the case of Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate vs. Neela Vijaykumar Bhate reported in AIR 2003 SC 2462 that if any

allegation of unchastity is made against the character of woman having an illicit relationship with other man is mentioned, then it falls under the category of mental cruelty, but now, it has to be seen in this case, whether the contention which non-applicant Rama Dasgupta has raised, on the basis of that ground, it can be determined that non-applicant has committed mental cruelty towards the applicant.

23. In the case of Smt.Kakali Das Ghosh vs. Dr.Ashish Kumar Das reported in AIR 2003 Kolkata 287, where, petition was filed earlier on the ground of desertion and cruelty for the restitution of conjugal life on which wife had casted doubt over the character of husband, then it was laid down that this does not fall under the category of mental cruelty. In this regard Ram Kumar @ Ramendra Kumar vs. Smt. Raksha @ Gulabo reported in AIR 2003 P&H 334, judgement also to be seen. In that case also, husband filed petition for dissolution of marriage, then wife, in her written statement allegate against husband for having illicit relationship with the widow of cousin brother, then only on this ground it had not been considered that it falls under the category of mental cruelty. In this case also, non-applicant made the same allegation, in her written statement that, applicant has become Muslim and he has an illicit relationship with other woman and non-applicant had same stand in her judicial statement also.

24. Smt. Rama Dasgupta, (NAW-1), has stated in para 5 of her statement that at present her husband had accepted the Muslim religion. In general he has accepted the Muslim religion since 1993 and he has kept his name as Anwar and has stated in para 4 of the petition that applicant has left the house after 2001. Now the applicant is staying with Sunita Haldar, working in the health department at Banki, Mongra. Applicant resides in her quarter and there is a child also from her. This witness has stated in para 10 of the cross-examination that, “you made Sunita Haldar Your wife, you have a child from her.” This witness has stated in para 19 of her statement that he has ulcer and chronic disease and therefore she wants to render service to him and she wants to resides with him but the condition is that, the child and Sunita Haldar will not reside with him. In this way, non-applicant has categorically made statement that applicant is residing with a female called Sunita Haldar.

25. Though Arup Kumar Gupta has denied from this fact, but in this regard there is a contradiction in the statement of Sunita Haldar and Arup Kumar Gupta. Arup Kumar Gupta had stated in para 7 of his statement that he knew Sunita Haldar since 1998 and when he has been asked, the reason for divorce of Sunita Haldar, he did not reply straightly and stated that he does not want to reply. Whereas, Sunita Haldar, (PW-4) stated in para 2 of her statement that, she knows plaintiff from 1997. On that time she was doing job in Banki Mongra. She stated in para 3 of her statement that plaintiff used to visit her place since 1998, now it has been stopped. In this way, the statements of Sunita Hladar and applicant Arup Kumar Gupta are contradictory. According to Arup Kumar Gupta he knows Sunita Haldar since 1998. Whereas applicant visits the place of Sunita Haldar after 1997.Under such circumstances the statement of the non-applicant Rama Dasgupta becomes trustworthy. Sunita Haldar has stated in para 1 of her examination-in-chief that she obtained divorce with her husband A.K. Roy in the year 1998 and she has stated in para 2 of her statement that her opinion was not matched with her husband, therefore divorce took place. Applicant Arup Kumar Gupta has not clearly denied the relationship with Sunita Haldar.

26. Now it has to be seen that non-applicant Rama Dasgupta is living separately with the applicant without any sufficient and cogent reason. Arup Kumar Gupta (PW-5) stated in his statement that filed an application previously on the ground conversion of religion. The petition applicant filed, there he wrote his name, Arup Kumar Gupta @ Anwar. Applicant also contended in para 21 of the petition that non-applicant disrespect his religion Islam and this acts falls under the category of cruelty. By this way, from the statement of the applicant, it is expressed that, he has accepted Islam. Under such circumstances the applicant does not have the right to file a petition for dissolution of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

As non-applicant Rama Dasgupta has clearly stated that applicant has become Muslim and under such circumstances non-applicant gets the right to be separated from the applicant.

27. Smt. Rama Dasgupta, (NAW-1), has stated in para 3 of her statement that applicant told her to draw the money from GPF fund for construction of house, then she had withdrawn Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, applicant pressurized and quarrelling with her for deposit the money in his name, then she deposited the money in Post Office. As a reaction, applicant beated her, and one day locked the quarter, when he was asked to open the door, then he replied to get an order from the the Court. Deen Dayal Aggarwal,(NAW-2) stated in para 2 of his statement that at present non-applicant resides alone in Yamuna Vihar quarter, earlier applicant was also residing in that quarter and it has been stated in para 2 of the statement that once the appllicant locked the house, then 5-7 persons broke the lock. This fact has not been refuted by the applicant. It is also an admitted fact that at present the house in which non-applicant Rama Dasgupta is residing is the house allotted to the applicant and it is clear from the evidence that applicant has left his house on his own will.

28. Smt. Rama Dasgupta, (NAW-1) has stated in para 9 of her statement that, applicant has changed his religion, therefore people look at her, with hate. She stated in para 12 of the statement that, this is a quarter of NTPC, this is wrong to say that he is not able to reside here. Applicant frequently visited there. He absconded for 3-4 days, again appears. She stated in para 18 of her statement that applicant took away the medical book and it is clear that applicant is not residing in that house and this fact is affirmed from the statement of applicant witness S. Vedraman and it is expressed from the evidence adduced by the applicant that applicant is residing separately from non-applicant and under such circumstances, it cannot be stated that non-applicant has deserted the applicant two years prior to filing the present petition deliberately and without any sufficient reason and in this way the ground mentioned under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) are not available in favour of the applicant. In this regard, the reliance has been placed upon the case of Parminder Charan Singh & Ors. vs.Harjeet Kaur reported in AIR 2003 SC 2310. As a result of it, suit issue Nos.2 & 3 are decided negatively in favour of the applicant and suit issue No.5 is replied in affirmative.



SUIT ISSUE NO.4

29. In view of the order dated 24.6.2004 passed by the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in First AppealNo.71 of 2001 Arup Kumar Gupta @ Anwar vs. Smt.Rama Dasgupta, parties have not led any emphasis on this suit issue, therefore in view of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court, this suit issue is not being disposed of.

SUIT ISSUE NO.6

30. Applicant/plaintiff has been completely unsuccessful in proving the fact that non-applicant

Rama Dasgupta, married applicant by concealing her age and consent obtained by fraud. Applicant has also been unsuccessful in proving the fact that non- applicant treated him with cruelty, and she has been residing separately from the applicant for more than two years without any sufficient cogent reason and under such circumstances the applicant is neither entitled to get the marriage declared as null and void nor is entitled to get the decree of dissolution of marriage.

31. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the case of applicants fails. The petition filed the applicant under Section 12(1)(c), 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is rejected.

32. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own expenditure. On the advocate fee being certified, the fee as per the certificate or the schedule whichever is less shall be payable.

Decree should be prepared accordingly. Judgment was pronounced today in open court.



Sd/- Illegible

R.S. Sharma

District Judge

Korba(Chhattisgarh)

/ / TRUE TRANSLATED COPY //