- (1.) Amiya and Namita got married on August 8, 1997 after a prolonged courtship. The marriage was registered under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 on August 29, 1997. There was class difference between the two families as alleged by Amiya in his plaint. According to Amiya, his in-laws were affluent. His father-in-law was in Government service. They were residing in three storeyed pukka building having all modern amenities at Bidhan Nagar, a posh locality in the town of Midnapur. His brother-in-law was a businessman. Namita was brought up since childhood in affluence and enjoyed ultra-modern life as claimed by Amiya in his plaint. Amiya had a humble background. They were residing in joint mess in a rented accommodation. He was medical representative and used to earn meagre amount. Soon after the marriage, couple initially started residing in the rented accommodation along with the family members. Namita was not happy. On her insistence Amiya had to shift from one to the other rented accommodation. The couple resided together for about three years when Namita insisted him to leave his parents and started residing as a domesticated son-in-law with her parents. She was expensive too. To meet her demand, Amiya had to sell his scooter to Namita's brother at rupees three thousand. On November 24, 2000 Namita's mother came to their place being rented accommodation under one Ranjit Mondal and took her to her parental home on the assurance that she would come back after Chirstmass. Amiya went to take her back on December 27, 2000 when he was insulted, misbehaved and manhandled. Namita was a graduate. She had sufficient bank balance. She had income from tuition. Despite her affluence, she filed maintenance case against Amiya to harass and hackle him. In June 2002, Amiya's father died. Namita did not come to Amiya's place to console him or observe rituals. Amiya was attacked with jaundice from February 16, 2005 to May 11, 2005. Namita was not by his side. She did not come to see him. On these allegations, Amio filed an application for dissolution of marriage, inter alia, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
(2.) Namita entered appearance and contested the case by filing written statement. She denied each and every allegation. She contended, her father was a driver before his retirement. She also denied Amiya's allegation, she did not do any household work. She, categorically, asserted that the marriage, was the outcome of the love affairs between the couple. Soon after the marriage she accompanied her husband and lived at the rental accommodation where she used to do all household work jointly with her mother-in-law. Although the marriage was an outcome of love affairs, her father gave gold ornaments, furniture and arranged a social get-together for the occasion. She alleged that Amiya was greedy and started putting pressure on her to bring money from her parents. She denied and, as a result, had to be subjected to torture. She fell down in the bathroom and sustained injury. Amiya did not arrange for her treatment. Hence, she was compelled to inform her father who took her for treatment. Amiya never cared to get any information about her, far to speak of providing cost of treatment. She was forced to file an application for maintenance.
(3.) During cross-examination, the parties were consistent on their approach. Amiya tendered medical prescription pertaining to Namita's treatment. He also produced document to say that they were on tour at Digha. He also admitted that his father-in-law was a driver in Agricultural Department of State of West Bengal before his retirement. He also admitted having a two-storeyed building. He however denied of having an income of rupees thirty-thousand per month. He also admitted that after selling scooter he purchased Hero Honda motorcycle at rupees forty-five thousand. He admitted of not sending money to his wife. He however asserted that he gave money to his wife while visiting his in-law's place. He also denied of receiving any dowry in kind at the time of marriage. He also relied upon Namita's deposition in maintenance case and got it exhibited. One Surojit Chakrabarty came and deposed as PW-2. According to him, the couple had discord. Namita used to quarrel, misbehave and humiliate Amiya in front of all. She insisted Amiya to stay at her place as domesticated son-in-law. During cross-examination, he admitted that Amiya was his friend. They were in the same profession. PW-3, Ranjit Kumar Mondal was the landlord in respect of the rental accommodation the couple stayed last. He deposed that the parents and brothers of Namita were frequent at such place. There was discord as Namita used to quarrel with her husband and in-laws. She abruptly left the house, despite attempt she did not come back. In cross-examination, he deposed that he could not remember the Durga Puja date of the last year however, he was specific that Namita had left the accommodation on December 24, 2000.;