AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is by the husband-Golap Chandra Mahanta-against the ex-parte judgment dated 24.09.2013, passed by the District Judge,
Golaghat in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 22/2012, whereby the petition filed by him against his wife-Runumoni Mahanta-under Section 13(i) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short ''Act'') has been dismissed.
Facts in short are these. Appellant and Respondent No.1 got married in the year 1991 and thereafter they started living as husband and wife.
Out of their wedlock, three children were born to them. Appellant is a teacher in a school at Karbi Anglong and he employed Paniram Karmakar-
Respondent no. 2 to look after his house on monthly wage basis. During his employment he and respondent No.1 developed illicit relationship and
on 04.09.2011 Respondent No.1 eloped with him. The brother -Niranjan Mahanta- of appellant then lodged a First Information Report before
Kamarbandha Police Station about her missing and when appellant could learn about the incident in details, he also lodged a detailed First
Information Report before the same Police Station on 06.09.2011. In the meantime, appellant could learn from some sources that Respondent
No.1 was staying in Guwahati and he sent three persons for her rescue, who came to Guwahati and found her living in a rented house with
respondent No.2 as husband and wife. They then brought her with them and produced her before the police and the police investigated the matter
and filed charge-sheet against Respondent No.2 under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. According to appellant, after her recovery,
Respondent No.1 fell sick for sometime and had to be hospitalized. However, after her discharge, she went to her parental home and since then
she has been living there. Hence, appellant filed the suit as aforesaid for a decree of divorce on the ground of committing voluntary sexual
intercourse by his wife.
The respondents did not contest the suit, since respondent No.1 did not receive the summons on the ground of mental illness and respondent
No.2''s address was not found. However, the District Judge dismissed the suit holding inter-alia that appellant failed to prove voluntary sexual
intercourse of his wife with respondent no.2 and hence this appeal.
None appears for the appellant. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has submitted that she was not represented in the suit and as such
the opportunity of hearing was not provided to her while passing the impugned judgment and decree. It has been vehemently argued that
Respondent No.1 had no illicit relationship and had never voluntary sexual intercourse with Respondent No.2. And as such, it has been prayed
that the matter may be remanded to the trial court for deciding afresh.
After hearing the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and perusing the records, we are of the considered view that it will be just, adequate
and proper, if one more opportunity is given to both appellant and Respondent No.1 to present their case and adduce evidence before the trial
court. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remand the case to the trial court to decide afresh on merits. The parties
are directed to appear before the trial court on 9.3.2018 and the trial court shall provide equal and adequate opportunity to both the parties and
hear and decide the matter afresh on merits. We have refrained ourselves from commenting on the merits of the case for an independent decision
by the trial court.
With the above directions, the appeal is disposed of.