RAMESH CHANDRA RAY Vs. SMT. NANDITA RAY
LAWS(ORI)-1978-9-14
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on September 26,1978

Ramesh Chandra Ray Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Nandita Ray Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.K.Das, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the confirming decision of the District Judge, Sambalpur in a matrimonial case filed by the husband against his wife for judicial separation. The Appellant initially prayed for a decree for divorce or for annulment of marriage or for judicial separation on the ground of unchastity, insanity cruelty and desertion on the part of his wife. Subsequently, after hearing commenced and some witnesses were examined, the plaint was amended and the prayer has been limited only to a decree for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty.
(2.) THE parties are governed by Dayabhag School of Hindu Law and are original residents of Calcutta. Their marriage took place on 12 -8 -1964 at the place of the Respondent, i.e. 14 Despriya Park, West Calcutta according to Hindu rites and customs. The Appellant is a member of the Indian Administrative Service of Orissa cadre. He was posted at Bhawanipatna, Sambalpur, Banki, Padampur, Nawapara and Rayagada. The Respondent lived with him at all these places and two issues were born out of their wedlock a son on 19 -2 -1966 and a daughter on 13 -3 -1967. It is alleged that some time after the marriage, the Appellant discovered that the Respondent was suffering from a typical type of unbalanced mind which was exhibited by her acts, conduct and ways of life. Even though the Respondent read up to B.A. and comes of a well educated family, she possessed repulsive and unhygienic habits, inasmuch as she never washed her teeth or tongue, never kept her hair tidy and did not take care of her dresses and clothes Such habits on the part of the Respondent produced a repulsive smell around her and in spite of repeated requests by the Appellant there was no improvement in the habits of the Respondent. It is further alleged that the Respondent was unresponsive, indifferent and apathetic to the Appellant's domestic expectations, desires and conjugal comforts. On several occasions, the Appellant on return from his office found the Respondent rude, irritative and abusive with violent outburst of temper, seeking to strike her head against the wall or some hard substance like glass, stone or paperweight and sometimes seeking to cut her throat by razor blade. On account of such acts and conduct on the part of the Respondent, the Appellant had to pass sleepless nights. The Respondent shunned the company of the Appellant and declined to move out with him in the society. In January 1965, the Appellant took the Respondent to a psychoanalyst at Calcutta who prescribed some medicines. Some -time thereafter, the Respondent was about to swallow the entire bottle of medicine in an irritative mood and the Appellant threw away the bottle. The Respondent never agreed to the course of treatment arranged by the Appellant. On 3 -5 -1965, the Appellant came to know that the Respondent had swallowed 25 'Sequil' tablets and she was removed to the hospital for treatment. The Respondent explained to the police at Calcutta that she was not having sleep and by mistake she had taken the pills meant for her sister's treatment for insanity. The Appellant has described this as an attempt to commit suicide. A week thereafter, the Respondent joined the Appellant at Banki. At that time Respondent was pregnant. The conduct and habits of the Respondent showed no improvement and resulted in continuing physical and mental distress on the part of the Appellant. On 19 -2 -1966 the Respondent gave birth to the first child at Calcutta. While the Appellant was at Rayagada the Respondent joined him sometime around 7 -6 -1966. No improvement was also noticed at that time in the conduct and habits of the Respondent. The Respondent started sleeping separately from 10 -6 -1966 and was not taking care of the child and, therefore, the Appellant had to look after the comforts of the child. The Respondent thereafter again left for Calcutta where she gave birth to the second child on 13 -3 -1967. She joined the Appellant at Sambalpur on 27 -7 -1907 with her first child, leaving the second child at Calcutta. The Respondent continued her obnoxious habits and conduct resulting in mental pain and distress of the Appellant. In October 1967, the Respondent went back to Calcutta again and came back in January, 1968. In April or May, 1968, the Respondent took some sedative drugs of a very higher dose and continued to live separately from the Appellant. She filed Title Suit No. 2/68 in the Court of the District Judge, Sambalpur on 2 -8 -1968 (vide Ext. 10) and again left for Calcutta via Jharsuguda on 25 -9 -1968. She returned to Sambalpur with her mother and another person on 11 -10 -1968, but stayed in the inspection bungalow. On 14 -10 -1968 she filed an application for withdrawal of the suit and the suit was dismissed for non -prosecution, The present suit was filed on 9 -12 -1968 by the Appellant. The Respondent in her written statement has denied all the allegations of the Appellant. Her contention is that she comes of a respectable educated family of Calcutta and is a lady of good tastes and habits. The Appellant kept her in a substandard condition and he was not very much attached to the family life. He used to come home late at night and abuse the Respondent without any rhyme or reason. Also the Appellant used to assault the Respondent. He neglected her and never took her out to move in the society. She had taken some pills by mistake thinking the same to be vitamins. Besides denying the allegations in the plaint, she contends that she does not suffer from any kind of imbalanced mind. At Rayagada she slept separately from the Appellant at the instance of the latter. Even in spite of that the parties cohabited regularly and they had their last cohabitation two or three days before 25 -9 -1968. She left for Calcutta in January 1967 at the request of the Appellant even though she was in an advance Stage of pregnancy. The two children were born through caesarean operation at huge costs which were borne mostly by the widowed mother of the Respondent. In May and June. 1967 the parties lived at Calcutta and had cohabitation. In August, 1967 they lived at Sambalpur and cohabited. In November, 1967 the Respondent went to Calcutta for attending the marriage of her sister and the Appellant joined her there in December, 1967 and they stayed together for some time. She filed Title Suit No. 2/68 at the instigation and in collusion with the Appellant as a price for peace in the family. She returned to Sambalpur in January, 1968 and stayed with the Appellant till 27 -9 -1963 and again went back to Calcutta with one Naren Mandal. When she went out of the control of the Appellant, she withdrew the said suit. The allegations of mental or physical pain or suffering as well as the allegations of rude, irritative and abusive habits or cruelty by the Respondent are denied. According to her, the Appellant suffers from inferiority completed and has all along been very cruel to her. The Appellant demanded a new car from the Respondent and as the same could not be provided, the present suit has been filed out of that grudge.
(3.) IT may be mentioned that though the case of the Appellant was based on cruelty and desertion, he has limited the case only to cruelty and the question of desertion has not been pressed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.