1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, 1ST COURT, PASCHIM

MEDINIPUR.
Mat Suit No.:- 601/2020 (C.I.S Reg. No. 304/2020)
CNR No.:-WBWM01-004640-2020
Present:-Shri. Uday Rana,
(JO CODE-WB 00995)
ADJ, 1st Court, Paschim Medinipur.
Petitioner ………........….. Papiya Roy (Dolai)
: VS. :
Respondent .......………....... Samir Dolai
Ord. No. 21 dated:-25-07-2024:-
The petitioner/wife files hazira through Ld. Advocate.

Today is fixed for filing an affidavit for S/R of Respondent but the Ld.
Lawyer has drawn the attention of the Court towards order No. 11 dated 22-02-
2023 where process was issued upon the respondent and the respondent appears
but did not contest the suit.
Hence, Record is taken for ex parte argument on the submissions of Ld.
Advocate for the petitioner.
Heard Ld. Advocate in full.
Perused the case record. Considered.
Record is now taken for passing of Order.
The instant suit has been filed by the petitioner/wife praying for dissolution
of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section – 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty. No specific provision has been
mentioned by the Ld. Advocate of the petitioner and thus, this application is
treated as u/s.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The respondent appeared in the suit on 07-07-2023 but thereafter failed to
contest the suit and accordingly the suit has been fixed as Ex-parte hearing by an
order of this Court.
The petitioner's case in brief, is that there was a love affairs between the
petitioner and the respondent and they both got married on 29.12.2018 at
Annapurna Mandir, Village Balaipanda, Paschim Medinipur, and registered the
marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on 07.01.2019. They resided as
husband and wife, and a son, Swarup Dolai, was born from this wedlock, now aged
nine months. Initially, the petitioner's father did not accept the marriage but later
did, visiting the couple occasionally.
The respondent and his family soon began pressuring the petitioner for a
dowry of Rs. 50,000, gold ornaments, beddings, and utensils. Despite her father's
financial difficulties, he managed to give Rs. 25,000, five bhories of gold, and other
items, promising more later. When this promise couldn't be fulfilled, the
respondent and his family subjected the petitioner to severe physical and mental
abuse, depriving her and her son of food, medicine, and clothing. The respondent, a
drunkard and gambler with extramarital affairs, often assaulted the petitioner.

Contd...
 2

His family even urged her to commit suicide.

Ultimately on 09.06.2020, the respondent and his family assaulted the
petitioner and deserted her and her child from the house, seizing all her
belongings. She sought refuge at her father's house, who tried to reconcile the
situation, but the respondent and his family's cruelty made any compromise
impossible. The petitioner has stated that finding no other alternative, she filed
this matrimonial suit to get a decree of divorce against the respondent for his
cruelty.
There is no relationship between them as husband and wife i.e more than 2
years and there is no chance of reunion between the parties and petitioner has
prayed for a decree of dissolution of marriage u/s.13(1)(ia) the Hindu Marriage Act
on the ground of cruelty.
In order to prove his case, the petitioner, Papiya Roy has examined herself
as PW-1 and Pradip Kumar Roy has been examined as PW-2. the documents. In
this case, the petitioner side has exhibited the following documents:- Aadhar Card
of the petitioner and Marriage certificate, which is marked as Ext.1 and Ext. 2
respectively.
Perused the evidence of the PW-1 & PW-2 and exhibited documents. Upon
perusal of the evidence on record, it reflected that the respondent deserted the
petitioner and treated her with acts of cruelty.
In the matters of Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal,
(2012) 7 SCC 288, it was observed that the expression ‘cruelty’ has an inseparable
nexus with human conduct or human behaviour. It is always dependent upon the
social strata or the milieu to which the parties belong, their ways of life,
relationship, temperaments and emotions that have been conditioned by their
social status.
In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007) 4 SCC 511], the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, after surveying the previous decisions and referring to the concept of
cruelty, which includes mental cruelty, in English, American, Canadian and
Australian cases, has observed that : (SCC pp. 545-46, paras 99-100)
“99. … The human mind is extremely complex and human behaviour is
equally complicated. Similarly human ingenuity has no bound, therefore, to
assimilate the entire human behaviour in one definition is almost impossible.
What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in the other case. The
concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing,
level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial
position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and
their value system. 100. Apart from this, the concept of mental cruelty cannot
remain static; it is bound to change with the passage of time, impact of modern
culture through print and electronic media and value system, etc. etc. What may
be mental cruelty now may not remain a mental cruelty after a passage of time
or vice versa. There can never be any straitjacket formula or fixed parameters for
determining mental cruelty in matrimonial matters. The prudent and
appropriate way to adjudicate the case would be to evaluate it on its peculiar

Contd...
 3

facts and circumstances….”

(emphasis supplied)

In the matters of Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1127,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as follows:-

7. We would like to emphasize that an element of subjectivity h

as to be applied albeit, what constitutes cruelty is objective. Therefore, what is
cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man, and a
relatively more elastic and broad approach is required when we examine a case
in which a wife seeks divorce. Section 13(1) of the Act of 1955 sets contours and
rigours for grant of divorce at the instance of both the parties. Historically, the
law of divorce was predominantly built on a conservative canvas based on the
fault theory. Preservation of marital sanctity from a societal perspective was
considered a prevailing factor. With the adoption of a libertarian attitude, the
grounds for separation or dissolution of marriage have been construed with
latitudinarianism.

Therefore, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the unchallenged

testimony of the petitioner because that the evidence of such PWs as adduced on
this case have corroborated the contents of the petition of divorce on the grounds of
cruelty and desertion and it also appears that expecting the petitioner to live with
the respondent may be a threat to her life and limb as well as her mental wellness
in the matrimonial life. There appears no chances of reunion between them in the
back drop of the circumstances so brought forth before the court on the basis of
such evidence as discussed above. Therefore, this Court hold that the petitioner is
entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the said Matrimonial Suit be and the same is decreed Ex-parte
without any cost.
Accordingly, the marriage tie between the petitioner/wife Papiya Roy
(Dolai) and the respondent/husband Samir Dolai solemnized on 29-12-2018 is
hereby dissolved u/s.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act from this day.
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to Rampada Barman Hindu
Marriage Registrar for information and necessary action.
Decree be drawn up accordingly.
Let the original Aadhar Card be returned to the parties by replacing
the same along with its xerox copy on this record.
The suit is thus disposed of.
Note in the relevant register.
Dictated and corrected by

(Shri Uday Rana) (Shri Uday Rana)

Addl. District Judge, Addl. District Judge,
1st Court, Paschim Medinipur 1st Court, Paschim Medinipur

Contd...