SURJYAMONI DASI, MINOR, BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN JATAN BEWA Vs. KALIKANTA DAS
LAWS(PVC)-1900-6-11
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on June 25,1900

SURJYAMONI DASI, MINOR, BY HER NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN JATAN BEWA Appellant
VERSUS
KALIKANTA DAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The plaintiff in this case is a Hindu of the Rajbansi caste. He has brought this suit for restitution of conjugal rights against defendant No. 1 (who is described in the plaint as a minor) through her next friend and guardian, her paternal grandmother. He has joined as defendants in the suit the paternal grandmother as defendant No. 2, Bishwambhar Das as defendant No. 3, who is alleged by the defence to have contracted a marriage with defendant No. 1, and Amir Chand Das and Gobind Das as defendants Nos. 4 and 5, who are described as uncles of defendant No. 1 and her nearest male agnates.
(2.) The allegations in the plaint are that defendant No. 1 was given in marriage to the plaintiff in Joistha 1303 by defendant No. 2, her paternal grandmother, and next of kin and guardian: that the marriage was performed with all the customary rites, as required by the Shastras and the caste to which the parties belong, and, that from the time of the marriage to Joistha 1304, plaintiff lived in the house of defendant No. 2 with defendant No. 1, and cohabited with her as his wife. It is stated that in Joistha 1304 the defendant No. 2 at the instigation of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 drove plaintiff out of her house, denied the marriage of defendant No. 1, with him and refused to let defendant No. 1 go and live with him, defendant No. 1 also refused to go and live with plaintiff. The motive of the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 is suggested to be to appropriate some jote jama land belonging to defendant No. 1 and in order to carry out their object they are said to have caused defendant No. 3 to be introduced into the house of defendant No. 2 with the object of marrying him to defendant No. 1. Plaintiff, therefore, alleged that defendant No. 1 being his legal wife was legally liable to come under his protection and to live in cohabitation with him, and the other defendants have no right or power to dissuade the defendant No. 1 or keep her back therefrom. He accordingly prayed for a decree declaring his marriage to be valid and directing defendant No. 1 to go and live with him.
(3.) A written statement was put in by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5 alleging: that defendant No. 1 was not the legally married wife of plaintiff; (2) that the suit was not legally maintainable against the defendant No. 1; (3) that defendant No. 1 had been married to Bishwambhar Das, defendant No. 3, and (4) that the suit was brought in order to get possession of the property of defendant No. 1.;


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