SANGHAMITRA GHOSH Vs. KAJAL KUMAR GHOSH
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-125
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 20,2006

SANGHAMITRA GHOSH Appellant
VERSUS
KAJAL KUMAR GHOSH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KANCHAN DEVI VS. PROMOD KUMAR MITTAL [REFERRED TO]
ANITA SABHARWAL V. ANIL SABHARWAL [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK HURRA ASHOK HURRA VS. RUPABIPINZAVERI:RUPA ASHOK HURRA [REFERRED TO]
MADHURI MEHTA VS. MEET VERMA [REFERRED TO]
HARPIT SINGH ANAND VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
SWATI VERMA VS. RAJAN VERMA [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN KOHLI VS. NEELU KOHLI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

T NARAYANASAMY VS. N KALEESWARI [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-620] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. RADHIKA @ DEEPALI VS. RISHIRAJ [LAWS(MPH)-2016-11-134] [REFERRED TO]
P.L. Venkatesh S/o Sri P.V. Lokaiah VS. Smt. M.G. Parvathi W/o Sri P.L. Venkatesh D/o Sri M.O. Gundlappa [LAWS(KAR)-2009-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR JAIN VS. GEETA [LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-220] [REFERRED TO]
RITA BHATTACHARJEE VS. JYOTIRMOY MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2009-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
LATESH SUBHASH KADAM VS. NEESHA LATESH KADAM [LAWS(BOM)-2010-1-150] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT VS. NIL [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-293] [REFERRED TO]
USHA UDAY KHIWANSARA VS. UDAY KUMAR JETHMAL KHIWANSARA [LAWS(SC)-2018-7-124] [REFERRED TO]
MANJU KUMARI SINGH @ MANJU SINGH VS. AVINASH KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2018-7-70] [REFERRED TO]
GURDEEP SINGH ALIAS TOTA SINGH VS. JASPAL KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2008-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
BAIKUNTHA CHAMPATI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAYAKARASI VS. M. YUVARAJ [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
AMARDEEP SINGH VS. HARVEEN KAUR [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
GURINDER SINGH VS. BHUPINDER KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2007-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
VEERENDRA SINGH VS. SEEMA RAJAK [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-142] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ BALA VS. SURINDER KUMAR [LAWS(J&K)-2008-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
M PADMA VS. V VEERAMANI [LAWS(MAD)-2010-4-419] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL JUDGE VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-246] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR VS. SEEMA SHARMA [LAWS(UTN)-2024-3-49] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR JAIN VS. MAYA JAIN [LAWS(SC)-2009-9-79] [REFERRED TO]
A B BHASKARA RAO VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(SC)-2011-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
PREETY VS. ARUN KUMAR [LAWS(MPH)-2016-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHI PATNI VS. ANUJ PATNI [LAWS(MPH)-2016-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
SINDHU K. RAJAN VS. M. AJITH [LAWS(KER)-2014-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
PRINCIPAL JUDGE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-6-109] [REFERRED TO]
R. SRINIVAS KUMAR VS. R. SHAMETHA [LAWS(SC)-2019-10-36] [REFERRED TO]
ASHITA PANCHOLIA VS. VIRAL M. PANCHOLIA [LAWS(SC)-2008-5-246] [REFERRED TO]
SUPRIYA A. VS. VIMAL ANBALAGAN [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-104] [REFERRED TO]
SWATI SARKAR VS. PRASANJIT SARKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-189] [REFERRED TO]
BHULU RANI DEY VS. RABI DEY [LAWS(GAU)-2012-4-74] [REFERRED TO]
JINU P PHILIP VS. ANNE VARGHESE JINU P PHILIP [LAWS(BOM)-2008-5-47] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH VS. MONIKA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-125] [REFERRED TO]
JAYSHREE VS. DEVENDRA [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-93] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA CHAUHAN VS. PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
HARJEET KAUR VS. SATPAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2023-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KHATWANI VS. NISTHA KHATWANI [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-66] [REFERRED TO]
DOLLY VS. ARVIND [LAWS(BOM)-2021-3-201] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SURANA VS. REKHA [LAWS(MAD)-2011-10-98] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL KAUR VS. GURJIT SINGH KHANUJA ALIAS SATNAM SINGH [LAWS(CHH)-2010-9-39] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMSUNDER VISHNOI VS. SMT. JYOTI [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-5-150] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J. - (1.)THE marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 8.11.1999 with the respondent as per Hindu rites and customs and was duly registered with the Registrar of Marriage. THE parties have closely known each other before marriage and the marriage was solemnized according to the wishes of the petitioner and the respondent.
(2.)A male child was born out of the wedlock but, unfortunately, the parties did not have a smooth marital life. According to the allegations of the petitioner, Sanghamitra Ghosh, she was physically and mentally tortured by the respondent and his parents. According to her, the degree of torture increased day by day and eventually on 14.1.2001 she was driven out of the marital home along with her minor child. Thereafter, the petitioner moved to her parents and started with them from 15.1.2001. The respondent never cared to inquire about the petitioner and her child and has never sent any money either for the maintenance of the petitioner or her child.
In these circumstances, she was forced to file a criminal complaint on 4.8.2002 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

According to the version of the petitioner, she was totally dependant on her father, who himself was very old and was suffering from cancer and a considerable amount had to be spent for his treatment. In these circumstances, the petitioner became an additional burden on her parents. In order to maintain herself and her child, she took up a petty job in the ICICI bank on a meagre salary. The petitioner now has been transferred to Bangalore, as a result of which it had become extremely difficult for her to attend the court proceedings in West Bengal. It is very expensive and time consuming. In these circumstances, the petitioner had filed a transfer petition praying that matrimonial suit no.437 of 2002 titled as "Kajal Kumar Ghosh versus Sanghamitra Ghosh" filed by the respondent-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and pending in the court of District Judge, Barasat be transferred to the court of competent jurisdiction at Bangalore.

(3.)THIS Court on 26.3.2004 issued a show-cause notice on the transfer petition. Reply to the transfer petition was filed by the respondent. The datewise sequence of events given by the respondent are contrary to what had been averred by the petitioner. According to the respondent, the petitioner was not driven out of the matrimonial home. In fact, she had walked out of the matrimonial home. The respondent further submitted that their marriage broke down due to the basic difference in their social status, educational and cultural background, lack of tolerance and inability to adopt and adjust to a life of a middle class family.
During the pendency of this petition, the parties have explored the possibility of an amicable settlement. The matter was adjourned from time to time to give the parties adequate time to mutually and amicably settle their differences. The parties, despite persuasion of the Court, have not been able to sort out their differences and decided to live separately. According to the parties, their marriage has been irretrievably broken down and reconciliation is out of question.



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