Samapti Chatterjee, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of judgement and decree dated 19th December, 2016 passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 3918 of 2014 by Smt. Mou Chatterjee, learned Additional District and Session Judge, Fast Track Court-I, District-Howrah.
(2.) The fact of the case is as follows :- The petitioner/husband in Mat Suit No.3918 of 2014 got married with the respondent/wife at Indira Bhawan, Salkia on 24.02.2012 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. The petitioner is a school teacher of Physics in Maju R.N. Basu High School. He is the only son of his parents who are senior citizens. The respondent is also a school teacher in same school. Thereafter, she was transferred in Kolora High School at Dompur from 20.12.2013. The petitioner due to his love and affection used to honour and tolerate the wishes and whims of the respondent. But day by day she became apathetic, cruel, unreasonable and arrogant. Initially she used to stay at her paternal house at 4/2, Khetra Chatterjee Lane, Salkia, Howrah for attending her school initially later on for any flimsy ground she never bother to give any formal information to the petitioner or his family members. She used to strongly react and respond very harshly against a very common and innocent query since the marriage with the petitioner. She never treated him with love and respect. She used to cause serious breach of peace in the family and impeach the character of the petitioner and thus lowered down his social esteem. Initially, the petitioner ignored these behaviour but ultimately her behaviour made the petitioner's life miserable. The petitioner out of shyness could not divulge such conduct of the respondent to his parents as the petitioner's parents were very affectionate to the respondent and they might be hurt and upset. The another case of husband is that the wife was about 8 years older than the husband. Even at the time of marriage she was going old. It would be rather difficult for her to conceive later on. So, the husband wanted an issue as soon as possible but the wife never wanted it and avoid the same for some flimsy ground as it was found that the wife had several illicit relations with her colleagues. After that she left for her paternal house with a false plea that she has to look after her old parents, though the parents stay with their son who used to look after them. She also insisted upon the petitioner to stay in a flat closer to his in-law's house situated at 6 & 7/1/1, Punjabipara Lane Salkia. Since the husband was suffering from various arthritis problems and ultimately the husband had to succumb under the pressure of the wife and moved to the rented flat beside his in-law's house. The wife used to stay at her parent's house almost day and night and the husband has to take care of himself. Doctor advised him to avoid painful journey from Howrah to Maju for his neurological problem, otherwise they will have to operate his spinal cord. The wife never rectified herself and she started more cruelty. She never liked the husband and trying to find out fault with him. The wife treated him with cruelty along with her family members. The respondent started to stay at her paternal house and she never came back to the rented house. After 9th August, 2012 the husband has been compelled to live separately at the house of Subodh Kumar Mondal, Madhya Maju, Jagatballavpur, Howrah from 10th August, 2012. Since marriage the wife/respondent never cared to show any love, sympathy, attachment and mutual respect to the petitioner so, the husband/petitioner has filed this suit for divorce. On the other hand, the wife/respondent appeared in this suit and filed Written Statement denying all materials allegations and stated that after marriage the petitioner has not arranged any place or house within District-Howrah so the wife has been arranged one rental flat after discussion with the petitioner both were residing there and fulfilling their conjugal life peacefully. She did not look after her father and mother, but she always looked to her husband and after return back from the school she used to do all works and the petitioner always refused to take any issue and he always maintained live together with respondent without any issue. The petitioner/husband filed another Mat. Suit being No.53 of 2013 at A.D.J, Bolpur and the same should be barred by res judicata as the husband filed a fresh suit at Howrah. It is also stated by wife/respondent that she is an educated and cultured person and all the family members are depending upon her and the marriage is a fruit of love affairs and after few days of marriage when the respondent took the temporary accommodation at her aunt's flat she noticed that the petitioner is self-centered and was always busy in telephone in order to talk with his family members and friends. He told the respondent that he is in great economic hardship and he agreed to lead better life leading with her expense. In the month of April, 2012 the petitioner became seriously ill for his waist pain and became bed-ridden and the wife at that time took all the arrangements for treatment and personally nursed him. She always took the household duties like making breakfast, lunch, tiffin etc including all works of nursing and thereafter went to her school. The husband used to find fault of her and abuse her by throwing articles. In the month of July, 2012 the family members of the petitioner came to the rented accommodation of the petitioner and started to behave rudely with the respondent and he stopped conversation with her. The petitioner forced the respondent to reside at the rented accommodation at Maju at the instance of his family members and on 15th August, 2012 the petitioner from Bolpur called the brother of the respondent and told him that he would like to divorce the respondent and when the respondent contacted with him he abused her and warned her not to go to Bolpur. She tried her level best to adjust with the petitioner but for the cruelty on the part of the petitioner and his family members she became mentally upset and find that her life is at stake. Despite's all she prays for dismissal of the suit. Submissions of the learned Advocates
(3.) Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/wife submitted that marriage was solemnized between the appellant and the respondent on 24th February, 2012 according to the Hindu rites and customs as per Hindu Marriage Act. Sometime in April the respondent/husband gathered that the appellant/wife is having illicit relation with some other persons. The fact is that the wife is eight years older than the husband but it was the love marriage. Mr. Mitra further drew Court's attention to some portion of the cross-examination of P.W.1 the respondent/husband and the same is quoted below :- "After marriage I started to reside at 10/1, Panjaripara Lane, P.SGolabari, District-Howrah. The house belongs to one relative of Sumita and we stayed after giving maintenance cost. After some days we take rent in another house being No.7/1/1, Panjaripara Lane, P.S-Golabari, District-Howrah. The agreement of rent was in the name of both of us. I suffered a pain at my spinal chord when I stayed in the first house. I have no clear knowledge regarding the surroundings of Salkia. Not a fact that Sumita took me to the doctor Asok Das. I cannot tell the address of Dr. Asok Das. Before marriage I went to orthopedic surgeon Dr. R.K. Das. I can file the prescription. I consulted with Dr. Asit Senapati at City Life. I went with my wife there. I have prescriptions. He advised me to take complete bed rest. I took bed rest for few days at the first house." He also referred the testimony of P.W.2 another teacher. Some portion of the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of P.W.2 is quoted below :- "Examination-in-chief of P.W.2- I have received a summons. I know Susanta Saha. He was my colleague. I know Sumita Majumder. She is also my colleague. I joined my service on 08.04.2004 at Maju R.N. Basu High School. Susanta joined in the school in November, 2002. Sumita Majumder joined in the school in the year 1993. I had good relation with both of them. Sumita Majumder stays at Salkia. We went to her house many times. All the teachers used to sit in one teachers' room. Sumita Majumder used to sit by the side of Pran Krishna Bag. He retired in the year 2007-2008. I know Sumita Majumder and Susanta Saha got married and afterwards they have filed a divorce suit. We heard regarding a relationship with Sumita and Pran Krishna Bag. We got a letter when we clean the school and I have brought that letter. This is the said letter marked as Exbt. No.6 (with no objection). I knew that Susanta was suffering from pain of spinal cord for which he was in bed rest. I went with him to doctor many tiems. After marriage he stayed in the house at Salkia on rent from February, 2012. He went to Maju at July-August, 2012. Today what I have told are all ture. Cross-examination of P.W.2-Now I am 38 years old. My house is at Gosaba, Sunderban. Now, I am staying at Sonarpur. From 2002 to my joining I do not know anything regarding the relationship with Susanta and Sumita. When I joined Susanta used to stay in a rented house near school. I also stayed with him. We had good relation. I did not know regarding the love affair with Susanta and Sumita. We were invited in the marriage of susanta on behalf of Susanta. May be Sumita also invited us. Not a fact that nobody went to the marriage from our school. We did not go to the house of Susanta. I did not go to the house of Susanta and Sumita at Salkia. I did not know regarding the doctors to whom he consulted at Salkia. After bed rest when he started staying at Maju I accompanied him to Park Clinic after some times when he started homeopathy treatment at Hooghly I used to got with him sometimes with car. I have no other knowledge. I cannot remember the name of the doctor of homeopathy. He was of Bhandarhati, Hooghly." Mr. Mitra further strongly contended that 3rd case has been made out by the learned Judge though no grounds was ever taken in the plaint. It is also strongly argued by Mr. Mukherjee that no attempt was ever made by the husband to bring the wife back. It is further emphasized by Mr. Mitra that since no attempt was made by the respondent/husband to bring the wife back, therefore, desertion could not be proved. It is contended by Mr. Mitra that after marriage they lived together only for six months therefore case of cruelty also cannot be proved. It is also not proved from the evidence that wife did not want to stay at Maju (husband's place of service).;