TARUN BHATTACHARJEE @ JIBESH BHATTACHARJEE S/O LATE JAGATJYOTI BHATTACHARJEE Vs. RITA BHATTACHARJEE C/O HILLAL BHATTACHARJEE
LAWS(GAU)-2018-1-42
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on January 18,2018

Tarun Bhattacharjee @ Jibesh Bhattacharjee S/O Late Jagatjyoti Bhattacharjee Appellant
VERSUS
Rita Bhattacharjee C/O Hillal Bhattacharjee Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ajit Singh, J. - (1.) This appeal is by the husband- Sri Tarun Bhattacharjee @ Jibesh Bhattacharjee -against the judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup(M), in Marriage F.C.(Civil) Case No. 686/2011, whereby the petition filed by him against his wife-Rita Bhattacharjee-under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'Act') has been dismissed.
(2.) Facts in short are these. Appellant and Respondent were married on 02.12.2010 and they started their married life in the house of appellant. But, appellant filed the petition seeking divorce on 03.12.2011 alleging inter alia that on the first night after marriage respondent did not sleep with him on some pretext and she refused to cohabit with him, on the ground that she was over aged and cohabitation or bearing child was a serious problem. It was also alleged that respondent confessed before him that she was more than 40 years of age and as such, it was not advisable for her to cohabit. The fact of her being over aged was concealed from the appellant at the time of their marriage and it was also alleged that during her stay in his house they cohabited only on two occasions and respondent used to go to her parental home frequently on this or that ground. According to appellant, respondent stayed in the matrimonial home for only 41 days and ultimately left his house on 27/06/2011 from which date she had been staying in the house of her parents. Besides, it was alleged that respondent used to treat appellant that she would commit suicide and it came to his knowledge that she tried to commit suicide on many occasions before her marriage. Besides, she did not do any household work and her behaviour towards appellant and his other family members was totally abnormal. Hence, appellant prayed for a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
(3.) Respondent contested the suit denying the allegations made by appellant regarding mental cruelty meted out to him as well as his family members. She contended that after marriage, she tried to satisfy appellant and his parents by discharging her duties as a daughter-in-law. Appellant used to reside in a joint family with his parents and respondent did her best to satisfy them. But after a few months of their marriage she noticed that behaviour of appellant as well as his family members towards her changed completely. Appellant being a Grade-IV Government Servant was the sole bread earner of the family and he and his family members began to demand her to bring money from her mother or her younger brother. They began to insist her to ask her mother about her pension or her younger brother about his monthly income. As the days rolled on, the family members of appellant started treating her as their domestic help rather than their daughter-in-law. She also alleged that her in-laws even disconnected electricity line and water to her bathroom and toilets and so, she had no other option but to leave for her parental home with hope that someday her inlaws and appellant would come and bring her to the matrimonial home. But none came to bring her in spite of her repeated phone calls to appellant, who in turn said that she was an ugly, old fashioned and aged girl. She desired to stay with appellant and still desires to live with him but appellant was reluctant to stay with her and filed the suit for divorce and hence the respondent prayed for dismissal of the suit.;


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