- (1.) This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 4th September, 2003 passed by the Principal Judge, First Family Court, Calcutta dismissing Matrimonial Suit No. 128 of 2002 filed by the appellant husband against the respondent wife, seeking a decree of divorce. It appears that the appellant husband was married to the respondent wife according to the Hindu Rites on 24th February, 1985. On 14th January, 1987, a son was born of the said wedlock between the respondent wife and the appellant husband. It appears that the appellant husband and the respondent wife lived together as husband and wife till 1995, but thereafter parted ways. In the plaint filed in the Court below, the petitioner alleged as follows: "That the parties lived happily and enjoyed their conjugal life upto the year of 1995. That the petitioner is an employee of State Bank of Hyderabad, was then posted at Brabourne Road Branch, Kolkata. On 23.5.96 the petitioner received an official instruction/circular in connection with the Income Tax return asking to file separate individual return of Income Tax apart from returns submitted by the employer/office. On receipt of this circular, the petitioner met the Branch Manager and narrated him regarding the joint A/c. he had. Then the Branch Manager advised to the petitioner to delete the name of respondent from the joint A/c. and convert the A/c. in the name of the petitioner only, otherwise your petitioner would not be allowed to file Income Tax return as asked by the Income Tax Deptt. Accordingly your petitioner wrote an application addressed to Branch Manager to delete the name of respondent from the said joint salary account and the petitioner put his signature on the application. On returning at home the petitioner narrated the facts and circumstances to the respondent and handover the said application and the respondent was asked to go through the application and sign. The respondent not only refuse to sign on the said application but also began to abuse various filthy and vulgar languages all though the letter was given for sign 6-30 p.m. and your petitioner waited upto 10-20 p.m. Instead of signing over the application the respondent further created a scene by raising hue and cry which attracted various people from the neighbours etc. who came on the spot and dragged the petitioner out of his house and even assaulted the petitioner by fist and blows at the instance of the respondent. Not being satisfied with such humiliation to the petitioner by the local residence, the respondent on the next day i.e. on 24.5.96 left the matrimonial home at about 5-15 a.m. with the minor child without giving any information/whereabouts to the petitioner and at noon time she went to the State Bank of Hyderabad (the then place of employment of the petitioner) alongwith her elder brother and few other local hooligans and met the Branch Manager of the said Bank and narrated several baseless allegations against the petitioner with a clear intention to further humiliate the petitioner in presence of his office staff, customers etc. such act of the respondent defamed the petitioner before this boss, superiors, colleagues and customers. That due to the fear of further humiliation the petitioner not returned to his house on 24.5.96 and he spent the night at his friend's house. After his official duty on 25.5.96 the petitioner returned to his house. At about 12.30 A.M. on 26.5.96, the respondent, her elder brother along with more or less 20 associates and hooligans came in to the house of the petitioner. The mother-in-law opened to door and some of them entered into the bed room of the petitioner. The elder brother of the respondent namely Subhendu Bikash Paul kicked (having shoe on his leg) on the face of the petitioner (without asking anything from the petitioner) causing bleeding injury on his forehead. Thereafter the brother-in-law assaulted the petitioner mercilessly and brutally by fist and blows at the instance and provocation of the respondent and her mother, even in such a condition, the respondent was in jovial mood and started to club her hands alongwith her mother. Thereafter the respondent, her mother, brother and others forced to write the petitioner on a paper in the form of a declaration and thereafter the hooligans and associates left the place at about 1.45 A.M. along with the petitioner's brother in law. However the respondent and her mother stayed thereat. The petitioner himself took first aid after one and half hours of the incident. The respondent and her mother threatened to petitioner for not going to the police station or elsewhere. On that night the respondent along with her mother took their dinner and close the room for the night. The petitioner was not supplied any food. The petitioner spent the night sitting at the balcony alone. That on the next day i.e. on 27.5. the petitioner after his official duty went to Baranagar Police Station but the police officers were busy with one dacoity case and they asked the petitioner to come on the next morning. The petitioner accordingly on 28.5.96 at Morning went to Police and lodge Diary recorded as Baranagar Police Station G.D.E. No. 1591 dated 28.5.96, the petitioner forthwith referred to Baranagar State General Hospital where he was medically treated by the Doctor (Vide Hospital reference/outdoor ticket No. 11089 dated 28.5.96). That on 31.5.96 the petitioner changed his residence from Ata Para, Dum Dum to Madhyamgram, 24-Parganas (North). Be it noted that the contractual period of Staying thereat was completed on 31.5.96 and the said shifting was taken place after giving 30 day's prior intimation to the Landlord, i.e. on 1.5.96. That the Respondent and her mother came at Madhyamgram along with the petitioner. The petitioner used to stay there at and under the same roof with the respondent and her mother under threat and compulsion. The-Respondent and her mother used to treat the petitioner as their servant and the petitioner used to say that she would not account for her works and activities but the petitioner was bound to maintain herself. That the time passes but the respondent not made any attempt to adjust herself with the petitioner rather she became more and more aggressive and adamant towards the petitioner. The respondent keeps away herself from all her domestic and matrimonial duties. She even stopped to serve the food to the petitioner. That on 11.6.96 the mother of respondent alongwith some political leaders/local people went to the office of the petitioner and created a scene thereon. The mother in law even suggested the colleagues of petitioner that the petitioner should be removed from his service and it would be better to appoint the respondent in his place. These act defamed the petitioner very seriously. That on 6th February, 1997 on his return from office in the evening, the petitioner drank water as usual from his water jug at about 7 p.m. After an hour of drinking the water the petitioner felt uneasy and ultimately had several time loose motions with vomiting, but strange to say that the respondent did not move to offer succour to the petitioner while he was vomiting in the bathroom. The petitioner was simply struck with surprise and disgust to see the attitude of the mother of the boy, who did not show any concern for the boy's injured leg for which he was crying. That even after the last mentioned incident, the petitioner tried his level best to maintain the family peace of avoiding all matters that could crop up controversies between the petitioner and the respondent, but the latter continuing to maintain her stoic indifference towards the petitioner and also in domestic affairs. That towards end of February 1997 the annual examination of the minor son Abhee commenced and continued upto 11.3.97. Abhee was then reading in St. Marry's School at Dum Dum (which is one of the renowned schools in Kolkata) where he was escorted by the petitioner in the morning (at the beginning of the school hours) while the respondent used to take the boy home after the close of the school at about 2 p.m. That on 11th March, 1997 the petitioner escorted the boy as usual to his school in the morning for his last examination and after leaving the boy the petitioner left for Calcutta to attend his office, at Brabourne Road on that day. On his return at home in the evening the petitioner found his room under lock and key and nobody was there, neither the respondent nor their minor son. The petitioner on enquiry came to learn from the landlady who staying upstairs of the house, that she saw the respondent leaving the house carrying two full of big shopper's bags (contents not known) on questioning the landlady, the petitioner came to know that the respondent did not tell anything to the landlady about her leaving the house. That in such helpless situation the petitioner went to the local police station to inform, that his wife/respondent had left the house alongwith son without giving any information to the petitioner. The officer in charge of the local police station after hearing the petitioner, surprised him by saying that the petitioner's wife came to the police station on the previous day i.e. on 10.3.97 and informed the officer-in-charge that she would leave the house on the next day i.e. on 11.3.97. That the respondent has settled a new mode of life and the marriage has broken down irretrievably. The respondent now a staff of Taki House Govt. Sponsored Multipurpose Girls School (Primary Section) situated at 301/2, A/P/C/Road, Kolkata - 700009. That the petitioner was on leave from 1.9.97 to 20.9.97 from his office. During that period i.e. on 3.9.97 the respondent and her father went to the office of the petitioner at State Bank of Hyderabad Brabourne Road Branch Kolkata and narrated various false/self created allegations to the Branch Manager and further filed one application asking the Branch Manager to stop the payment without joint signature with respondent of the petitioner's salary a/c. On the basis of that letter the authority stopped the payment from the said A/c. and as a result the petitioner failed to withdraw his monthly salary for the months of August, 1997 and September, 1997. The manner called the petitioner and condemned him in presence colleagues of all rank. That again on 24.12.98 the father of the respondent went to the present office of the petitioner as Burrabazar branch, Kolkata and started to shouting/chaos within the business hours in presence of the colleagues and customers. Finding no other alternative the petitioner went to local Police Station at Burrabazar and lodged a diary recorded as G.D.E. No. 3388 dated 24.12.98. That the Ld. Magistrate of Sealdah Court being Case No. M/27 of 1997 as well as the 6th Addl. Dist. Judge at Alipore (Mat Suit No. 1 of 2000) tried to reconciliation between parties but the said reconciliation was failed at the instance of the respondent. Even the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Talukdar of Calcutta High Court took his personal initiative for further reconciliation at his Court room after the day's work and His Lordship tried to convenience the respondent by saying to treat him as elder brother not as Hon'ble Justice. The said attempt In connection with case No. 973 of 2001 was in vain due to the adamancy of the respondent. The respondent flatly refused to lead conjugal life with the petitioner. That the respondent went to such extent, that she even filed an application with Head Master Mr. Subimal Shaw of Mitra Institution, Primary Section, Calcutta 700009 (where Master Abhee was a student) asking him not to allow the petitioner to meet with his said son and copies were forwarded to the Class teacher, District Inspector of Schools and also Amherst Street Police Station. As a consequence, the School authority withdraw their verbal permission to meet Master Abhee Haider. Such a motivated and inhuman activities broke the heart of the petitioner. However the petitioner narrated the situation through an application at the Amherst Street Police Station recorded as G.D.E. No. 352 dated 4.8.98. That the respondent left matrimonial home permanently on 11.3.97 at her own accord and deserted the petitioner with an intention to break the matrimonial tie. That the petitioner then filed one application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution conjugal right before the learned Judge at Alipore 24 Parganas (S) registered as Matrimonial Suit No. 1481/97. However the petitioner withdrawn the said suit on 22.4.2002 after paying full amount Rs. 54,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost) for 26 months @ Rs. 2000/- p.m. (Rs. 1500/- for Respondent & Rs. 500/- for minor child) as alimony as per order No. 45/dated 20.8.01."
(2.) The respondent wife filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. In the plaint, it is alleged that from the inception, the petitioner was ill-treated by the respondent wife and her mother. The respondent wife denied that her mother lived with her.
(3.) On a perusal of the plaint as also the written statement, one thing is clear. The main clash between the appellant and the respondent was the result of a devious attempt on the part of the appellant husband, to have the respondent wife's name deleted from the common joint account, in which the salary of the appellant husband was credited.;