- (1.) Kalyan Kanti Chowdhury was married to Mithu Chowdhury on January 30, 2001 at Atpur in the district of 24-Parganas (North) according to Hindu rites and customs. The marriage was solemnized after a social negotiation. The parties did not know each other prior thereto. Out of the wedlock, a child was born in early part of 2003. Mithu gave birth to the child at her parental place. According to Kalyan, she left abruptly on July 5, 2002 after a discord. in 2006. On January 5, 2006 Kalyan filed suit for divorce being Matrimonial Suit No.143 of 2006. Kalyan alleged mental cruelty on him by Mithu. Mithu used to abuse him with filthy languages. Kalyan prayed for decree of divorce on the ground of her desertion and refusal to come back to matrimonial home for performing conjugal rites. Mithu contested the suit by filing the written statement. According to her, the marriage was solemnized upon payment of dowry to the extent of rupees fifty thousand. She emphatically denied having used any filthy language towards her husband. On the contrary, she alleged that Kalyan used to abuse her with filthy language and threatened her to kill. She gave birth to the male child namely Ripon Chowdhury on April 15, 2003. The entire delivery expense was borne by her relatives. Kalyan did not pay a single furthing . She denied having withdrawn herself from the association of the petitioner. She neither refused to live with her husband nor committed any cruelty or desertion. The learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Barrackpur dismissed the said suit on contest vide judgment and order dated March 18, 2009 that gave rise to the present appeal by Kalyan.
(2.) The appeal came up before us when upon going through the records we asked the parties to appear before us. Initially we tried out level best to settle the discord. We tried for a re-union but failed. After long deliberation the parties agreed that they would part with upon payment of permanent alimony payable by the husband to the wife. It was agreed that a sum of rupees four lacs would be paid as permanent alimony. With regard to the child, on our persuasion Kalyan agreed to pay rupees six lacs. He however prayed for sometime to pay off the said sum. Pertinent to note, Kalyan is an employee under the State Government and is presently receiving salary of rupees thirteen thousand eight hundred and seventy nine only (net) as would appear from his pay slip for the month of February 2012. Earlier, we adjourned the matter from time to time to enable Kalyan to clear off the arrear maintenance that was granted by the Court below. After two/three adjournments we could see that the arrear maintenance was clear before the start of hearing. We were inclined to give sometime to Kalyan to pay the amount of rupees six lacs in deferred manner provided he would clear the lumpsum alimony of rupees four lacs to the wife simultaneously on getting a mutual divorce. The wife was however, not agreeable to have a deferred payment. Hence, the entire effort failed and we took up the hearing.
(3.) Mr. Bhaskar Sen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband contended that from the conduct of the wife it was clear that she was only interested in extortion of money. She was not willing for a re-union. She was not willing to go back. He referred to the evidence of PW-1 and 2 and contended that both the witnesses corroborated each other. Hence, the learned Judge should have relied upon the same. According to him, even in crossexamination the witnesses could not be shaken. The appellant/husband made out a consistent case on cruelty that would entitle him a Decree of Divorce.;