BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDES, FAMILY COURT, KAMRUP

BHARALUMUKH, AT GUWAHATI

APPLICATION NO --------------
IN THE MATTER OF:
An application Under Section 13 (1), (1) a
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying
for decree by dissolution of Marriage.
-AND-

IN THE MATTER OF:

Smti. Shymali Sarkar,
D/o. Tapan Sarkar,
R/o. Tribeni Path,
Near Moonlight Kalibari Mandir
House No.- 73,
P.O- Binova Nagar,
P.S.- Ambari
District- Kamtup Assam.
….Petitioner.

- VERSUS-
-
Sri Anish Kumar Roy,
S/o. Nepal Chandra Roy,
R/o. C/o MKA
SRCB. Lila Kunj Hotel
P.S.- Panbazar,
District- Kamrup, Assam.
…….Respondent.
The humble petition of the above named petitioner.
Count….
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That the petitioner and the respondent were marriage on 26-02-05 at their own
house with the consent of their parents and the respondent had taken the petitioner
to his rented house at Guwahati in the district of Kamrup, Assam.

2. That the petitioner is a law abiding citizen of India and a permanent resident at
aforesaid locality and as such she is under the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

3. That the respondent took money from one person showing grantor the petitioner
for business purpose but he misused the debt money which the petitioner is still
trying to paid the money to the person.

4. That, during the cohabit period the respondent was started to show his unchastely
and he used to quarrel with the petitioner resulting physical assault and mental
tortures.

5. That in many occasions the respondent had physically tortured the petitioner but
she being the wife of the respondent had quietly tolerated and tried to pacify the
respondent so as lead a normal family life as husband and wife, on the contrary
the respondent made it a regular practice.

6. That on extermination by the respondent from his cohabitation, the petitioner took
shelter in her parental house on 22-03-2007 and now she has been doing a private
job in a school at Guwahati and since then she has not maintained any marital
relation with the respondent.

7. That the respondent is an unscrupulous and hypocrite one and as such it is quite
unsafe to lead conjugality with him any further as husband and wife.
8. That, there is no collusion among the petitioner and the respondent is presenting
the petition seeking decree of divorce.

9. That this petition is made bonafide and for the ends of justice.

It is therefore prayed that your Honour would

be pleased to pass a decree of divorce by

dissolution of marriage against the respondent and

give any other relief/reliefs as your Honour may

deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.

And for this act of your kindness the petition as in duty bound shall ever pray.

VERIFICATION

I, SMIT. SHYMALI SARKAR, D/o. Tapan Sarkar, R/o. Tribeni Path, Near
Moonlight Kalibari Mandir, House No.-73, P.O.- Binova Nagar, P.S.- Ambari,
District- Kamrup, Assam. do hereby solemnly affirm and verify that, the
statrments
Made in this petition are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and rest are
my
Humble submission before the Hon’ble Court.

And I sign this verification on this ……..day of March, 2009 at Guwahati.

SIGNATURE

Contd..Affidavit
 AF F I DAVI T

I SMIT. SHYMALI SARKAR, D/o Tapan Sarkar, aged 29 years, by religion-

Hindu, R/o. Tribeni Path, Near Moonlight Kalibari Mandir, House No. -73,
P.S.-Fatasil Ambari, District- Kamrup, Assam, do hereby solemnly affirm on oath
and state as follows:

1. That I am the petitioner in this case and hence I am fully acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the statements made in paragraph 1 and 9 of the petition those made in
this Affidavit are true to my knowledge and belief and the rest are my humble
submission before this Hon’ble court.

And I sign this affidavit on this 16th day of March, 2009 at Guwahati.

Identified by me

DEPONENT

Advocate
 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY,
AT GUWAHATI
F.C.(CIVIL)142/2099
Smit. Shymali Sarkar
……..Petitioner
-Vs-
Sri Anish Kumar Roy
……Respondent
-AND-
IN THE MATTER OF:

An application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

for providing maintenance pendenit lite and expenses
of the proceeding.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That, the above mentioned case is pending before this Hon’ble Court since Match
2009 and at present passing through different stages of Law reached the stage of
Evidence and hearing till now.

2. That, 05.09.09 was fixed for evidence of the Plaintill and as such the Petitioner also
filed evidence-on-affidavit for P.W.1 and P.W.2.

3. That, the abovementioned case was proceeding ex-parts as the respondent willingly
never appeared before this Hon’ble Court.

4. That, suddedly on 5.09.09, the respondent filed two petitions numbered as petition
No.1021/09 and 1022/09, asking for time to file writted statement and entered his
appearance for the first time.
5. That ,the sudden appearance of the respondent at this stage of the case is nothing but
waste the time of the Court, to delay the proceedings of the Court as well as to harass
the petitioner.

6. The petitioner on each and every date has appeared before this Hon’ble court and
passed through each and every stages of proceedings of the case and now as the
respondent has entered his appearance after so many months and asked for time to file
written statement, the proceedings will be delayed and the petitioner will have to wait for
another longer period for justice.

7. That, the petitioner is working in a private school of kids with a very meager amount
of salary. That, amount of salary is not even sufficient to maintain herself, although
for justice and having no other alternative left she had filed the above mentioned case
against the respondent.

8. That, the petitioner somehow has managed to file this case and to proceed till now. The
petitioner is not having sufficient source of income to go through the proceedings again
and as she is working in a private school, it is very difficult for her to attend the court on
each and every date taking leave from the school. And for which her job is already at
stake and if she had to attend further more proceedings of the Court, she would probably
be termination from her job, which is the only source of income of her.

9 .That, the petitioner begs to state that, on the hand, the respondent is living a well to do
life without any burden, working in a company and having a monthy income of atleast
10,000/- per month.

10. That, the petitioner begs to state that, it has become impossible and unbearable on the
part of the petitioner to live and maintain herself and also at the time to maintain with
the expenses of the case.
11. That, the petitioner begs to submit that, in the above circumstances and as the
petitioner is facing sevre hardship tomaintain herself as well to meet with the
minimum requirements for maintaining the case an interim maintenance of Rs.1500/-
per month may be granted to her.

It is therefore prayed that, Your Honour would be

please to-
a. Admit the Petition.
b. Grant an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month as
maintenance pendenti- life to be paid to the
petitioner by the respondent.
-AND / OR-
Be pleased to pass any such order/orders as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of your kindness your petitioner as duty bound shall ever pray.

VERIFICATION

I, I Smit Shymali Sarkar, wife of Sri Anish Kumar Roy, daughter of Sri
Tapan Sarkar, resdent of Tribeni Path, Near Moonlight Kalibari Mandir, House No.73,
P.O. Binova Nagar, P.S. Ambari, in the District of Kamrup, Assam, do hereby Verify that,
the statements made in the above Paras are true to my knowledge and belief and I sign
this verification on this, the 31st dat of October, 2009, here at Guwahati.

Signature
BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDES, FAMILY COURT, KAMRUP,
AT GUWAHATI

F.C.(CIVIL)142/2009

Smit. Shymali Sarkar

…….RESPONDENT

-Vs-

Sri Anish Kumar Roy

-AND-

THE MATTER OF:

A written objection to the petition No.1021/09 and 1022/09
dated 05.09.09 /09 filed by the respondent.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1 That, the above mentioned case is pending before this Hon’ble Court since March
2009.That, 05.09.09 was fixed for evidence of the plaintill and as such the petitioner also
filed evidence-on-affidavit for P.W.1 and P.W.2. That, the abovementioned case was
proceeding ex-parte as the respondent willingly never appeared before this on’ble court.
That, suddenly on 5.09.09, the respondent filed two petitions umbered as No.1021/09
and 1021/09, asking for time to file written statement.That , the petitioner begs to state
that, in the 1st para of the petition No.1021/09, the Opp.party has started that, the said date
i.e. was fixed for W.S. and again in the 1st para of petition No. 1021/09, the opp.party has
stated that, the said dateis fixed for ex-parte hearing. That, the petitioner failed to
understand the meaning of filing two petitions on the same day asking for time to file
written statement. However, the 1st para of the both the petitions are itself contradictory. It
is to be noted that, the stage of filing W.S. has already been over as this Hon’ble court has
waited for more than 90 days for the Opp. Party after serving of the notice. That, the
statement made in para 2 of both the petitions are false and are strongly opposed by the
petitioner. The Opp. party is well aware of the fact that, a case has been instituted against
him by the petitioner.

8. That, the petitioner begs to state that, a simple perusal of the court records makes it
crystal clear that, the respondent is well aware of the case filed against him and he has
received the notice alone with the copy of the petition.

9. That, on 13.03.09, the copy of the petitin alongwith the notice was sent to the
respondent through registered post with A/D and on 21-03-09, the A/D was received by
the Nazir of this court.
10. That, although notice was served through registered post and A/D was also received
by the Court, yet the court waited for him and only because of his non-appearance
even after receiving the A/D back, notice was sent to him through authorized person of
the court.

11. That, the petitioner begs to state that, as the respondent is living alone with his
parents so notice was sent to the working place of his father, where the father of the
respondent is still working. The court records clearly shows that, on 04-05-2005, the
notice was returned back to the court only because the father of the respondent refused to
receive any notice of the court.

12. That, on 06.06.09, again the notice was taken by the authorized person of the court.
On this occasion also, the father of the respondent refused to received any Notice of
the person concerned, the notice was hanged on the shop, the working place of the
father of the respondent.

13. That, on 03-07-09, when the Notice was sent through the authorized person of the
court to the then residential address of the respondent, the owner of the house has
received the Notice saying that, the respondent along with his parents resides there
and she receives the notice on his behalf.

14. That, the petitioner begs to state that, on several occasions notice was sent to the
respondent on different addresses just with the intention of giving him a fair
opportunity to defend his case. But the respondent never bothered to appear before
this Hon’ble court.

15. That, the petitioner begs to state that, it is a settled principle of Law that, when notice
is sent through regietered post with A/D and the A/D is received back by the court, it is
deemed that, the Notice has been sered and received by the opposite party.

16. That, it is also a settle principle of the Law that, when any person refused to accept
the Notice of the court, it is deemed that, the person has full knowledge of the contents of
the Notice.

17. That, the petitioner begs to state that, the petition No. 1021/09 and 1021/09 filed
By the respondent has totally failed to substantiate the grounds on which he is claiming
that he has not received any notice and time may be granted to him. He has also failed to
substantiate the grounds as well as how it came to his knowledge now after so many
months that, a case has been filed against him and the date as well as the Case No. etc.
fixed for the case.

18. That, the petitioner begs to state the, the act of the respondent is nothing but an
attempt to take wrongful advantage of the liberties provided by law and moreover to
consume the valuable time of the court.
19. That, the sudden appearance of the respondent at this stage is nothing but to harass
the petitioner and to delay the proceedings of the court. The Hon’ble court has
already waited for the respondent as per law and the time provided by Law for filing a
written statement is already over months before.

20. That, the petitioner also begs to state that, it is proved from the records of the court,
that, the notice has been served on the opposite party several times and he along with
his parents also has the full knowledge of the case being filed against him.

21. That, the petitioner begs to state that, a case has proceeded to the stage of the
evidence after passing over so many stages and the petitioner all alone on each and
every dated, passing through all the stages of a civil case and is waiting for justice
from this Hon’ble court.

22. That, this petition is filed bonafile and for the ends of justice.

In the premises aforementioned, it is therefore prayed

that, your Hon’ble would be pleased to.
a) Admit this petition.
b) Dismiss Nos. 1021/09 and 1021/09 dated
05.09.09 filed by the respondent.
-AND /OR-
Be pleased to pass any other order (s) as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of your kindness your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

VERIFICATION

I, I , Smt. Shymali Sarkar, wife of Sri Anish Roy, daughter of Sri

Tapan Sarkar, resident of Tribeni Path, Near Moonlight Kalibari Mandir, HouseNo- 73,
P.O.Binova Nagar, P.S. Ambari, in the District of Kamrup, Assam, do hereby verify that,
the statements made in the above Paras are true to my knowledge and belief, and I sign
this verification on this, the 31st day of October, 2009, here Guwahati.

Signature
 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDES, FAMILY COURT
KAMRUP, AT GUWAHATI

F.C.(CIVIL) 142\2009

Smti Shymali Sarkar

………Petitioner
Sri Anish Roy
……….Respondent

-AND-

IN THE MATTER OF:

EVIDENCE – NO – AFFIDAVIT of the abovenamed
Plaintill, Smt. Shymali Sarkar .

I, Smt Shymali Sarkar, wife of Sri Anish Roy, daughter of Sri Tapan Sarkar,
Resident of Tribeni Path, Near Moonlight Kalibari Mandir, House No.73, P.O. Binova
Nagar, P.S.Ambari, in the District of Kamrup, Assam do hereby solemnly affirm and state
as follows:-

1. That, I am the petitioner in the abovementioned case, which is institued against

the respondent, Sri Anish Kumar Roy, my husband, for a decree of divorce under
Section 13 (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. That, I state that, I was married to the present respondent Sri Anish Kumar Roy
on 26-02-2005 according to the Hindu rites and rituals, and after our marriage we
lived in a rented house at Bhaskar Nagar alone with my father-in-law, mother-in-law
and one sister-in –law.

3. That, I state that, although at the initial stage after my marriage, there was a
cordial marital relation between us, but soon it turned into a bad dream for me.

4. That, I state that, the respondent started pressurizing me to bring money from my
father, but I refused to do so and from there the crux of my life begins.

5. That, when after several occasions I refused to ask and bring money from my
pareats, one day the respondent himself went to my father’s house and asked for
money about 10 lakhs from my father, on the pretext of starting a new business of His
own. My father refused to give such a huge amount of money.

6. That, I state that, after such refused from my father, the respondent behaved very
badly with with my father and also threatened him that in such a situation he will
send me back to my parental home.
 7. That, I state that, the respondent along with his parents started torturing me and
made life miserable. That used to torture me both physically and mentally, used slang
languages on me, and even not allowed me to talk or meet with parents and other
arental family members. When any of my parental family members tried meet me, they
were very rudely treated, insulted by the respondent alone with his.
 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
KAMRUP, AT GUWAHATI

F.C.(CIVIL) /2010

Sri Anish Kumar Roy

Son of Sri
Resident of
….. Petitioner
-Vs-
Smt. Shymali Sarkar
Wife of Sri Anish Kumar Roy
Daughter of Sri Tapan Sarkar.
Bhaskarnagar,
Truibeni Path, House No. 73,
Guwahati, Assam
……… 2nd Petitioner
-AND-

IN THE MATTER OF :

An application under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of
divorce by mutual consent.

The humble petition of the above named Petitioner:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. That, both the above named Petitioners were married to each other as per to Hindu
rites and rituals on 26th February, 2005 and also lived together as husband and wife.

2. That, after their marriage both the Petitioners faced certain indifferences between
both of them and for which ultimately the 2nd Petitioner left her matrimonial home on
22nd March, 2007.

3. That, both the Petitioners begs to state that, since then about 3 years has elapsed, but
the parties remain separated from each other.

4. That, both the Petitioners begs to state that, they gone through a mutual
understanding and came to the conclusion that, both of them will not be able to live as
husband and wife as any more and it is not possible for them to reunite in the future.
That, under such circumstances, it is therefore agreed by both the Petitioners to obtain a
decree of divorce by mutual consent.
5. That, both the Petitioners begs to state that, they have mutually agreed for
dissolution of their marriage without any such terms and conditions from either side.

6. That, it is stated by both the parties that, this petition for a decree of divorce is made
by mutual consent of both the parties in sound mind and without any compulsion.

7. That, this petition is made bonafide and for the ends of justice.

In the premises aforementioned, it is therefore prayed that,

Yours Honour would be pleased to-

1) Admit this petition.

2) Pass a decree of dissolution of marriage by a decree of

divorce between both the parties.

-AND /OR-

Be pleased to pass any other order (s) as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of your kindness your Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
 AF F I DAVI T

I , Sri Anish Kumar Roy, S/o………………………………………

Aged about……… years, resident of ………………………………………….
Assam, being Petitioner No. 1 and

I, Smt. Shymali Sarkar, wife of Sri Anish Kumar Roy, daughter of Sri
Tapan Sarkar, resident of Bhaskarnagar, Tribeni Path, House No. 73, Guwahati,
Assam, being the Petitioner No.2
In the aforementioned case, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. That, we are the Petitioners in the above mentioned case and as such fully
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and thus competent to
swear this affidavit.

2. That, the statements made in the above mentioned Paragraphs are true to our
knowledge and belief and which we believe to be true and rests are our humble
submission before this Hon’ble Court.

And thus I sign this affidavit on this the ………day of

January, 2010 here at Guwahati.

DEPONENT NO.1

Identified by me, DEPONENT NO.2

 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KAMRUR, AT
GUWAHATI

F.C.(CIVIL) /2010

Sri Anish Kumar Roy

……..1st Petitioner
-VS-

Smt. Shymali Sarkar

……..2nd Petitioner
-AND-

An application on behalf of the Petitioners abovenamed for

waiver of the minimum period of 6 months time period for
obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

MOST RESPEPECTFULLY AHEWETH:

1. That, the abovementioned application is filed by both the Petitioners for

obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

2. That, both the Petitioners most respectfully states that, they are living
separately without any contact with each other since 22nd March, 2007.

3. That, the 2nd Petitioner has also filed a petition for divorce against the 1 st
Petitioner on March 2009, which was numbered as F.C.(Civil) 142/ 2009. That, in
that said case the 2nd Party had already filed herevidence-in-affidavit and 1 st
Petitioner being Opp.Party has also filed his written statement.

4. That, both the Petitioners begs to state that, they have been living separately
for about 3 years and Civil Suit for obtaining a decree of divorce has been
pending since last 1 year.

Thus, under such circumstances it is clear that, it is not

possible for both the parties to re-unite in future and thus prays for the waiver of
the period of minimum 6 months time period for obtaining a decree of divorce by
mutual consent.

5. That, this petition is filed bonafide and for the ends of justice.
 In the premises aforementioned, it is therefore
prayed that, Your Honour may be pleased to-
Admit this petition and

Considering the circumstances

abovementioned be pleased to waive the minimum
period of 6 month as required as a minimum time
limit for obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual
consent.

And for this act of your kindness your Petitioners shall ever pray.