TEKAIT MON MOHINI JEMADAI Vs. BASANTA KUMAR SINGH
LAWS(PVC)-1901-3-5
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on March 20,1901

TEKAIT MON MOHINI JEMADAI Appellant
VERSUS
BASANTA KUMAR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ghose, J - (1.) The appeal arises out of a suit for enforcement of conjugal rights.
(2.) The plaintiff and the defendant were married on the 9 Falgun 1292 Amli, corresponding to the 18 February 1885, at a time when they were both minors. The defendant is the daughter of the Rajah of Kattikari in the district of Midnapur. The Rajah was then dead, and the defendant was given away in marriage by her mother. The plaintiff's parents agreed that their son should be married to the defendant, and at the time of the marriage an agreement, described in this suit as pratijna patra, was executed by them, and it ran as follows: That we solemnly promise that you, having decided to keep my eldest son Sriman Rai Basanta Kumar Singh Babajiban in your own house, after having married your eldest daughter to him, and having asked for my permission and that of my wife thereto, we both give our consent thereto and execute this pratijna patra, to the effect that neither I nor my wife shall ever propose to take our said son to our own house, nor shall we be competent to take him there. He will live for ever at your qarh (house) at Kuttikari, and will very happily continue to carry on the business of the Raj. To this effect we, of our own accord, execute this pratijna patra (deed of promise in the presence of respectable and other men of this place. Finis. Dated the 9 of Falgun 1292." To this were added the following lines: "I, Sri Rai Basanta Kumar Singh (i.e., the plaintiff) being bound by this deed of promise, do promise that I shall not be competent to take my wife from this place to my own father's house or to any other place. I shall always carry out your orders, and I shall not be competent to do any act or to go to any place without your permission. Finis."This document was signed by the plaintiff's parents, and by the plaintiff.
(3.) The plaintiff lived at Kuttikari in the house of his father-in-law for about 15 years, but subsequently disagreement broke out between the plaintiff, on the one hand, and the defendant and defendant's mother, the Rani, on the other, the result being that the plaintiff was not agreeable to live with the defendant in her father's house, and demanded that she should come over and live with him in his own house at Jahanabad in the district of Hughli, which, it is alleged, she refused to do; and thereupon the present suit was brought for a decree directing the defendant to live with the plaintiff at his own house. 4. The suit was defended by the defendant upon the ground that it was against the custom of the family for the daughter of the Rajah to go and live in the house of her husband; that the claim was against the provisions of the ekrarnama of the 9 Falgun 1292; that the plaintiff always lived in the house of her father, and was being maintained from the allowance given by the defendants mother; that the plaintiff had been guilty of cruelty to the defendant; that he had no means of his own to maintain the defendant, and so forth, And the defendant further alleged that on account of the violence committed by the plaintiff and his ill-treatment of the defendant, a complaint was lodged before the Collector as representing the Court of Wards (in whose hands the Kuttikari estate then was) and thereupon the plaintiff was forbidden to enter the house of the defendant's father, and also that in a previous suit between the parties which had for its object the obtaining of possession of the defendant by the plaintiff as his wife, there was a compromise between the parties to the effect that the defendant would forgive the plaintiff and pay him maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 30 to enable him to live separately and that the suit was therefore barred by res judicata.;


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