MC 2893/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. Malakar, learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant. By this instant interim application registered as M.C. 2893/2010 , the applicant/appellant prays for condonation of delay of 83 days in filing th e accompanying appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 19/9/2007 p assed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup in Case F.C. (Civil) No. 355/2005 dismissing his petition under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage A ct, 1955 (hereafter for short referred to as the Act) seeking dissolution of his marriage with the opposite party. According to the applicant, though the judgment and order was pa ssed on 19/9/2007, it was signed only in the month of December, 2007. Meanwhile he was taken ill and was under medical treatment from 15/10/2007 to 10/1/2008. T he applicant has annexed a photo copy of the certificate to the above effect fro m the Sub-Divisional Medical and Health Officer, North Guwahati PHC, District Ka mrup. Having regard to the ground put forward to explain the delay, we have considered it appropriate, as the proceeding relates to a matrimonial disp ute, to examine the applicant’s case on merits in the appeal before deciding fin ally as to whether a notice ought to be issued to the opposite party wife. Register the appeal. The parties were married on 7/3/2005 according to Hindu religiou s rites whereafter the opposite party joined the matrimonial home. The applicant ’s was a joint family. According to him, the opposite party displayed early sign s of incompatible conduct and was not only abusive to the other family members o f the family but also deliberately ignored to discharge her matrimonial obligati ons. He alleged that she was particularly critical of him for being unemployed a nd used to cynically comment in this regard for which he felt insulted and humil iated. According to the applicant, therefore, the above persistent conduct of th e opposite party resulted in unbearable cruelty to him for which he sought allev iation from his miseries by seeking dissolution of his marriage with her. The opposite party in the written statement while denying the al legations brought against her contended that from her side she tried her best to attend to the household duties and other matrimonial obligations. She further a verred that though at the time of marriage the applicant had represented to her that he had a grocery shop, he was thereafter found idling away his time at home with no work or income. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. They also exami ned themselves and their witnesses. On a consideration of the materials on recor d, the learned Court below dismissed the applicant’s petition holding that he ha d failed to prove the ground of cruelty as contemplated under section 13 of the Act. In coming to the said conclusion, the learned Court below in particular scr utinised the evidence of the applicant and his witness Shri Kushal Das. In his e vidence, the applicant on oath stated that the opposite party was non-cooperativ e with him and that she used to humiliate him for having no work. He further dep osed that the opposite party used to rebuke and abuse his mother and other famil y members and insisted to live separately from the joint family. He testified th at the above conduct and misbehaviour of the applicant caused mental agony to hi m. The witness, Shri Kushal Das, though deposed that the parties remained separatel y in the same house due to some differences, expressed ignorance for the reason therefor. On the other hand the opposite party stated that in course of her stay in the ma trimonial home, the applicant used to pick up quarrel over trifles. She also in categorical terms denied the allegations brought against her. Her witnesses Deep ali Boro, DW2 and Nabalata Das, DW3 stated on oath that it was instead the appli cant and his family members who meted out cruel treatment to the opposite party. They claimed to be witnesses to such acts of misbehaviour as well. The learned Trial Court, on an assessment of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence o n record thus arrived at the finding that the applicant had failed to prove crue lty by the opposite party. Mr. Malakar has persuasively argued that as the averments made b y the applicant in his petition read with his evidence on record makes out an ov erwhelming case of mental cruelty, the learned Court below had fallen in apparen t error in declining the decree for divorce and that therefore the impugned judg ment and order needs to be set aside in appeal. According to him, therefore, it is a fit case where the delay ought to be condoned and the appeal be heard on me rits. As indicated hereinabove, the debate before us being relatable t o a marital dispute, we considered it appropriate to be fully satisfied before d eciding to issue notice on the application for condonation of delay. It is with that end in view that we have perused the impugned judgment and order so as to e nsure that the notice is issued to the opposite party wife only if we find suffi cient merit in the appeal. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant/appellant and on a consideration of the pleadings on record and the evidence adduced, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the appeal lacks in merit. Not only in our estima te the evidence adduced by the applicant/husband falls short of the comprehensio n of cruelty as is envisaged in section 13 of the Act, the reasonings recorded b y the learned Trial Court are neither perverse nor absurd nor illogical warranti ng interference therewith in this appeal. We are also not satisfied about the su fficiency of the ground offered to explain the delay. In the above factual premi se, we are left unconvinced that issuance of notice on the application for condo nation of delay would advance the case of justice. Misc. Case 3893/2010, is therefore, rejected. As a consequence t he matrimonial appeal also stands rejected.