SUJIT BANERJEE Vs. ANITA BANERJEE
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
S.Narayan, J. -
(1.)This appeal by the husband-appellant has been flied against the judgment and order dated 28.02.1990 passed by the 6th Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore, Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No. 12 of 1986, whereby his prayer for a decree of divorce under section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty as also of desertion was refused.
(2.)The husband-appellant being the next door neighbour of the respondent fell in love with her and, accordingly, they were married according to Hindu rites and customs in the year 1972 with the consent of parents of both the sides. After the marriage, the respondent shifted to her matrimonial home and some time later a son was borne from the wedlock in the year 1973. The appellant happens to be an employee of a Theatre and the respondent is a housewife. The son, namely, Debabrata, who is now aged about 21 years, always lived with his mother i.e. the respondent.
(3.)The appellant has come up with a divorce petition mainly alleging cruelty both physical and mental caused to him by the respondent from the very beginning of the conjugal life. The respondent is alleged to have shown utter disregard, negligence and hatred to the parent of the petitioner and she used to visit her parental home very frequently against the wish and desire of the petitioner and her mother. She had been always ill-advised by her father leading in mental agony and insult to the petitioner. The respondent is said to be also in habit of abusing and even physically assailing the petitioner from time-to-time and, on some such occasions, she had also torn the cloths on his body, she had also inflicted some bodily injuries on his person in some events of quarrel with him. She also tried to grab the ornaments of his mother for which his mother had to move for legal recourse through a Court of law. Ultimately, the respondent left the matrimonial home on July 22, 1980, when the petitioner tried his utmost to bring her back to the sense but he failed to do so. The matrimonial relationship came to a deadlock from that very date and the respondent, thereafter, refused to discharge her matrimonial obligations. The respondent also falsely accused moral character of the petitioner, and such false accusation told upon the mind of the petitioner to a great extent. The cause of action is thus said to have arisen on and from 22.07.1980, but the petitioner having awaited a change in the mode and style of her life ultimately, instituted the suit for dissolution of the marriage in the month of August, 1985.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.