IN THE COURT PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT,

CACHAR, SILCHAR.
F.C. (CIVIL) CASE NO.- 269/2020.

Tapan Kumar Nath.......................Petitioner

-VS-

Smt Gouri Nath .......................Respondent

The written statement

submitted by the Respondent /
Defendant namely Gouri Nath, W/o.
Tapan Kumar Nath, R/o. Official
Govt. Quarter, PWD colony, Tarapur,
Silchar, Dist. Cachar, Assam, Pin-
788003, Mobile No. 9394257770

The above named respondent

Most respectfully sheweth: -

1. That, the respondent is bonafide citizen of India and residing permanently

at the mentioned address.

2. That, the petitioner filed a divorce case against the respondent on Nov.
2020 before your Honourable court and stated in 13 numbers of Para for
seeking divorce of marriage of the petitioner & respondent on the ground of
cruelty and desertion under the Hindu Marriage act 1955 U/S -13 (1) (i-a) and
(i-b).

3. That, in petition filed by the petitioner of the case are not same as actual
fact stated in Para no-2 except the marriage between respondent & petitioner
was solemnised on 10/12/2001 at respondent father house as per Hindu rites
and rituals,

AND, in Para no. 3 that two issues born of the said Wed-lock between the
parties and elder one is daughter namely Surja Nath born on 08/01/2003 and
younger one is son namely Tapadhar Nath born on 27-09-2009,

And, the other part of Para No-2 & 3 and whole part of Para No. 4, 5 , 6, & 7 ‘s
contents are totally false and fabricated and concocted one.

4. That actual fact is,

a. That, the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 10/12/2001

with the respondent as per Hindu rites and rituals, and at the time of
marriage the father of the petitioner given the sufficient marriage articles,
materials & cash amounts.

b. That, after marriage the petitioner started residing with the

respondent as Husband & wife at the permanent address of the
respondent along with other in-laws family members and during
conjugal life the two child was born due to wed lock between the
parties, and from them oldest one is a daughter whose name is Surja
 Nath on 08-01-2003 and younger one is son whose name is Tapadhir
Nath on 27-09-2009.

c. That, the respondent is working as permanent staff of the public

works dept (PWD), Govt. of Assam as Clark at Silchar PWD Road
Division, and due to this he got a quarter at PWD Colony, official
quarter, Tarapur, Silchar and after birth of 2 nd child the petitioner &
respondent started residing at the mentioned quarter at Silchar the
year 2010.

d. That, after started residing at Silchar the respondent involve taking

alcohol in regular basis, and daily came to home at late night in heavy
drinking position, and done quarrel with the petitioner in every small
matters, also the respondent started torturing physically and mentally
with the petitioner but petitioner did not response to save her conjugal
life, but when it gone over boundary the petitioner leave the
respondent house in the year 2013 with her 2 no’s minor child and
taken shelter to the paternal house of the petitioner for few month,
further with the help of paternal guardian and in-laws family guardian
it has settled amicably and again started residing at the same quarter
of PWD, at Silchar with the respondent along with 2 no minor child.

e. That, in the year 2018 the petition found information from own
source, that the respondent was engaged with other women as
external marital relationship and living at the flat of respondents
 ownership at Silchar by suppressing the fact to the petitioner & his
Childs, in this matter the petitioner contacted with the informer to find
all the information, and found that the information was right that the
respondent seriously engaged with other women due to sexual
intercourse and residing in repeated days in own flat at Silchar as
husband & wife, when the petitioner objected this matter to the
respondent, the respondent quarreled with the petitioner and also
repeatedly batten & injured the petitioner, but due to maintain her
conjugal life the petitioner suppress the matter between her own,
further the respondent made false treatment of the petitioner to
recover the injuries, also by giving false and fabricated information to
the daughter and son and they have been de-touch from their mother
and started residing them to the Grandfather house at Bhangarpar,
Cachar permanently and left the petitioner in alone position at the
Govt. quarter.

f. That, in this matter the petitioner filled a criminal case before the In-
charge, Tarapur outpost on – 02/08/2020 which is pending before
your Hon’ble Court, and another incident happened on 14/09/2020 the
respondent break the door of Govt. quarter and enter into the room
when the petitioner was absent and also broken the Almirah and taken
all the marriage Gold articles and other important Treatment
documents. In this matter the petitioner again filled another case
before the In-charge Tarapur outpost, Silchar and also informed the
PWD departments Concern officials.
5. That, with the above circumstances it is stated that the cruelty has
done by the petitioner , not done by the respondent due to save her
conjugal life, so that no cruelty factor arises to take divorce under Section
13(i) (i-a) of Hindu marriage Act 1955, also the cruelty point arise by the
petitioner against the respondent but no complaint filed during the incident
happened before any court or police station or to any other authority, it is a
concocted story making by the respondent to take forcibly decree of divorce
from the respondent and to continue other women relationship also the
cruelty define in the order by Supreme of India in the case of Narayan
Ganesh Dastane vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane on 19 March, 1975 AIR 1534,
1975 SCR (3) 967. And saind in para no II of the Judgement “that the
burden of proof in a matrimonial petition-must lie on the petitioner because
ordinarily the burden lies on the party which affirms a fact, not on the party
which denied it. This principle accords with commonsense, as it is much
easier to prove a positive than a negative. The petitioner must, therefore.
prove that the respondents had treated him with cruelty within; the
meaning of r. 10(1)(b) of the Act. But the High Court was wrong in holding
that the petitioner must prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. The
normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact is said to be
established if it is proved by preponderance of probabilities. Under s. 3
of the Evidence Act a act is said to be. proved when the court either
believes it to exist or if considers its existence so probable that a prudent
man thought, in the circumstances, to act upon the supposition that it
exists. The first step in this process to fix the probabilities. the second to
weigh them. The impossible is weeded out in the first stage, the
improbable in the second. Within the wide range, of probabilities the
Court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which
ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies.
Important issues like the status of parties demand closer scrutiny than
those like the loan on a promissory note. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is
proof by a higher standard which generally governs criminal trials or trials
involving enquiries into issues of quasi-criminal nature. It is wrong to
import such considerations in trials of a purely civil nature. Neither s.10
nor s. 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act requires that the petitioner must
prove his case beyond reasonable doubt S. 23 confers on the court the
power to pass a decree if it is satisfied on the matters mentioned in
Clauses (a) to (e) of that Section. Considering that proceedings under
the Act are essentially of a civil nature the word 'satisfied' must mean
satisfied on a preponderance of probabilities and not satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt. The society has a stake in the institution of
marriage and, therefore, the erring spouse is treated not as a mere
defaulter but as an offender. But this social philosophy, though it may
have a bearing on the need to have the clearest proof of an allegation
before it is accepted as a ground for- the dissolution of marriage, it has no
bearing on the standard of proof in matrimonial cases. In England, a
view was at one time taken that a petitioner in a matrimonial petition
must establish his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt but the House of
Lords in Blyth v. Blyth has held that the grounds of divorce or the bars to
the divorce May be proved by a preponderance of probability. The High
Court of Australia has also taken a similar view. [975 A-976 B]”
6. That, another section filed by the petitioner i.e. Sec 13 (i) (i-b) of Hindu
Marriage Act 1955 on dissertation from two years, which is not arises because
the respondent is still residing at petitioner quarter taken from the PWD
department, Govt. of Assam and the also the respondent has in communication
with the in-laws family at Bhangarper, Cachar, Assam and the children of the
respondent is residing at her in-laws house to nurture in better way. Where the
petitioner is engaged with other women at Silchar and not giving any financial
support to respondent to nurture herself and childrens, also the petitioner
started residing at new flat purchased at Silchar with the other women illegally
from few month and only one or two days in a week has resided with the
respondent at their Govt. quarter, without no financial support has been giving
to the respondent, and also regularly threatening that to leave the quarter and
go at paternal house, but the respondent not doing this due to save her
conjugal life and future of their children’s, and due to this the respondent has
filed a petition under protection of women from domestic violence 2005 at
Silchar which is pending before Honorable Court, so there is no dissertation
factor arises to take the divorce from the respondent.

7. That, with the above circumstances the instant divorce petition is not
maintainable because the two factor has not arises in the case i.e Cruelty &
Dissertation and for that there is not chance to dissolve the marriage between
petition and the respondent, hence it is required to dismiss the case and pass an
order to live both the petitioner and respondent as husband & wife by
maintaining their conjugal life and also build their children future for the ends of
justice.
 So it is therefore prayed to your Honour would
graciously be pleased to dismiss the case and pass an
order to live both the petitioner and respondent as
husband & wife by maintaining their conjugal life and
also build their children future for the ends of justice.

VERIFICATION

The statements made above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief, in proof whereof I sign this verification on this 22 nd day of
Jan 2021 at Silchar.
 AFFIDAVIT

I, Smt. Gouri Nath, D/O. Sri Dilip Nath, W/O. Tapan Kumar Nath,
R/o. – Official Govt. quarter, PWD colony, Tarapur Sichar, Assam, pin-
788003 (Petitioner), by profession–House wife, by faith – Hindu, by
nationality – Indian, , do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows: -

1. That, I am a Bonafide citizen of India by birth and residing at the

aforesaid address.
2. That I am instant Respondend of this case and I am conversant to the
written statement made here in PARA no 1 to 7.

The statement made above are true to the best of my knowledge

and belief and seen and signature this affidavit on 20 th Sep, 2021 before
the Notary Public, Silchar.

Identified by me Deponent
Sworn before me,

Advocate, Silchar

Notary Public, Silchar.