Banerjee, J. - (1.) The present appeals are directed against the judgement dated 31.3.97 passed in Mat. Suit No. 1/93 (Misc. 4/95) by the Additional District Judge, 24-Parganas(S), through which the learned Judge dismissed the suit filed by the husband, for divorce, but allowed the suit filed by the wife, for restitution of conjugal rights.
(2.) The husband as the petitioner filed the suit for dissolution of marriage alleging, inter alia, that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7.2.85 at Railway Quarters, Narkeldanga according to religious rites and customs of the parties. The petitioner at the relevant time was a commercial clerk in the railway and was living at his official quarters at Narkeldanga since before marriage with his parents and two dependant unemployed brothers, After the marriage, the petitioner brought,the respondent/wife to his quarters at Narkeldanga and the parties lived there as husband and wife. Within a short time, it was discovered that the respondent was a selfish, quarrelsome and fault finding and she failed to adjust with the family members of the petitioner. The petitioner was compelled to shift his residence, to a rented house at Barrackpore leaving the parents and the brothers in his quarters to maintain family peace. But due to financial constraint he had to shift back with the respondent to the quarters at Narkeldanga, but he had to arrange separate cooking for the parents and the brothers at the instance of the respondent. A son was born to the respondent on 21.5.89. Even the birth of the son did not change in the nature and behaviour of the respondent. She would not allow the widowed mother of the petitioner to care and hug the baby. Her ill behaviour and misconduct towards the petitioner, his mother and brothers continued unabated. Family peace was completely shattered by her. Finally the mother and two brothers decided to live elsewhere and the petitioner had no way out but to maintain a separate establishment for them. It was alleged that the respondent was a suspicious woman and in the habit of abusing the petitioner openly in presence of others. Due to such suspicious nature of the wife, the mental peace of the petitioner was shattered. It was also alleged that the respondent/wife practically had withdrawn from the society of her husband through living under the same roof. There was no cohabitation between the two for the last 3 years. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner came up before the Court for a decree of divorce on the ground that the respondent/wife treated him with cruelty.
(3.) The respondent/wrfe contested the suit on a written statement admitting the marriage between the parties according to Hindu rites and the birth of a son, Pratik Chatterjee. But alleged that sometime in the middle part of 1991, the petitioner became indifferent towards the respondent/wife and off and on started abusing her with most filthy language. It was also alleged that the petitioner husband used to go to his office at 9.30 a.m. without taking meals and after office hours he was not coming home at night. It was also alleged that the respondent got a photograph of a lady from the money bag of the petitioner and became suspicious. It was the specific allegation of the wife/respondent that on enquiry respondent came to know that the petitioner/ husband was taking meals from outside and he ha'd an illicit connection with a lady by the name of Miss. Kalyani Sen Gupta who was his office colleague. The said Miss. Kalyani Sen Gupta resided at Barrackpore with her mother and a sister and the petitioner/husband without coming home often used to stay at Barrackpore in the night. The respondent/wife through the written statement also denied alf other material allegations raised in the petition.;