Sri Dhanjit Karuna Kalita vs Sri Pranita Pathak
2021 Latest Caselaw 2795 Gua

                                                                          Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010240602017




                            THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : Mat.App./53/2017

             SRI DHANJIT KARUNA KALITA
             S/O SRI KARUNA KALITA, PREVIOUS ADDRESS VILL. KANIMARA, P.O.
             BHALUKI, MOUZA SARIHA, P.S. PATACHARKUCHI, DIST. BARPETA,
             ASSAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILL. RAIPUR HARIPUR, P.O.
             PATHSALA, MOUZA SARIHA, P.S. PATACHARKUCHI, DIST. BARPETA,
             ASSAM, PIN 781325


             VERSUS

             SRI PRANITA PATHAK
             D/O SRI PHANIDHAR PATHAK, PERMANENT R/O VILL. KATHALMURA, P.O.
             JALKHANA, MOUZA TIHU, P.S. TIHU, DIST. NALBARI ASSAM, PIN 781371
             PRESENT ADDRESS ASSTT. TEACHER, HOWLY NORMAL PRAC M.V.
             SCHOOL, HOWLY, P.O. HOWLY, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781316



Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.U DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A HUSSAIN

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG 10-11-2021 Suman Shyam, J

Heard Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. A.

Hussain, learned counsel representing the respondent.

Page No.# 2/3

This matrimonial appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-03-2017 passed by

the learned Addl. District Judge, Bajali at Pathsala in T.S. (Matrimonial Divorce) No. 11/2014

dismissing the suit filed by the appellant as petitioner seeking a decree of divorce on the twin

grounds of cruelty and desertion by his wife, i.e. the respondent. From the materials available

on record, it appears that the appellant had got married to the respondent on 17-04-2009 as

per Hindu rites and thereafter, a girl child was born to them on 17-01-2010 out of the wed-

lock. Soon after the marriage, the appellant and the respondent used to reside together at

Kanimara village in the district of Bajali. However, on 01-07-2011, the respondent had to go

to Nagrijuli in connection with her employment since she was serving as a school teacher.

Since the respondent did not return back to permanently reside with her husband, hence, the

appellant had instituted the aforementioned divorce proceeding. According to the appellant,

although repeated attempts were made to bring his wife back so as to continue with the

conjugal life, she did not return, which had compelled him to institute Title Suit (MD) No.

11/2014, which was eventually dismissed by the learned trial court.

During the course of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant

and Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent have submitted, in all fairness, that since

the appellant and the respondent have been living separately for last 10 years their marriage

had evidently broken down irretrievably and there is no scope of their re-union.

Under the circumstances, the proper course of action would be to go for a negotiated

settlement of the dispute between them. To that extent, the learned counsel for both the

sides have submitted that there is scope for mediation in the matter even at this stage and

their respective clients would be willing to participate in the mediation process if this matter is

referred to mediation by this Court.

Page No.# 3/3

Taking note of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for both the parties and

with their consent, we refer this matter to the Gauhati High Court Mediation Centre (GHCMC).

The Coordinator of the GHCMC to appoint a trained Mediator in this matter. The Mediator, so

appointed, shall intimate both parties as regards the first date of sitting by issuing prior

notice.

Let this matter be listed again along with the report of the Mediator or after 03

months, whichever is earlier.

                              JUDGE                       JUDGE
GS




Comparing Assistant