- (1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a suit for divorce on the ground of desertion and cruelty and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th September, 1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, burdwan in Matrimonial Suit No. 78 of 1985 thereby passing a decree for divorce.
(2.) THE husband-respondent filed the aforesaid suit for divorce and the case made out by the respondent may be summed up thus: (a) The parties were married in the month of December 1982 according to the hindu rites and ceremonies and thereafter they live as husband and wife. (b) The appellant, from the very beginning, never adjusted herself with the family environment of the respondent and very often, on some pretext or other, picked up quarrel with the respondent and his old parents and other members of the family, and used to leave the matrimonial home and come to her father's residence at Bongaon. (c) In spite of protest made by the respondent, the appellant became turbulent and used to abuse the respondent and his family members with filthy language and sometimes, used to inflict bodily injury on the respondent and even attempted to kill the respondent by tightly grasping his testicles. (d) In view of such abnormal behaviour of the appellant, it was not possible for the respondent to live with her as the appellant attempted to dishonour and malign the honour, prestige and reputation of the respondent and his family members by taking recourse to false and malicious allegations before the police and the office master of the respondent. (e) The appellant deserted the respondent and left the matrimonial home at kalna in May 1984 with all her ornaments and clothings behind the back and the knowledge of the respondent without his consent. Hence the suit. The suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the application for divorce and her defence may be summarised thus: (i) After marriage, the appellant wanted to live with her husband at Durgapur but the respondent refused on some pretext or the other. The respondent is an employee of the Central Government of India and had all along a quarter in Durgapur and at the time of marriage negotiation, the respondent gave out to the parents of the appellant that he had no quarter and he used to live in some other's quarter. However, after marriage, it was gradually revealed that the respondent had quarter since the inception of his service and had a concubine named C (we are not mentioning the full name), who was kept in that quarter and for that reason, the respondent refused to live with the appellant at Durgapur. (ii) The appellant was left at Kalna and the respondent used to come to Kalna only once in a month for a night. It was undesirable and unbearable for the newly married appellant and her warm desire to lead conjugal life with the respondent did not materialise. (iii) The parents, brothers and sisters of the respondent knew about the said concubine but they remained silent. They also did not behave properly with the appellant and it was impossible for the appellant to live at Kalna without her husband. (iv) The appellant, however, somehow got the address of the respondent at durgapur and all of a sudden, one day went there and found the said C living in the quarter. (v) The respondent, having seen the appellant, burst into rage, abused her with filthy language and tried to drive her out. The appellant patiently remained there for some days but thereafter, the appellant was forced to come back to Kalna. (vi) The appellant tried her best to rectify the respondent with love and service but failed. All the allegations in the application for divorce including the act of physical and mental cruelty pleaded therein were false. (vii) The respondent for the marriage demanded a dowry of Rs. 15,000/- and ornaments of 10 Bharis of gold and other valuable things from the father of the appellant and the father of the appellant fulfilled the said demand and the marriage was solemnized but after the marriage, the respondent falsely alleged that he agreed to marry the appellant on consideration that the father of the appellant would bear the full responsibility of the marriage of the elder sister of the respondent. The respondent, after 2/3 months of his marriage, insisted on complying with such illegal demand of taking responsibility of the marriage of his sister when the parents of the respondent supported him and they all made the relationship bitter and cloudy with the parents of the appellant. The respondent sometimes threatened the appellant that he would break the marital relationship if her father did not take the responsibility of the marriage of his elder sister. (viii) The articles, which she got from her father at the time of marriage, were being damaged and the respondent and his parents did not allow the appellant to get back her articles and therefore, she was compelled to pray for search warrant in the Court of the S. D. J. M. at Bongaon to recover her own articles given by her father. The suit being a false one should be dismissed. At the time of hearing of the suit, the husband and six other witnesses including two doctors gave evidence while the wife alone deposed in support of her defence.
(3.) THE learned Trial Judge on consideration of the materials on record concluded that the wife was guilty of cruelty and consequently, decreed the suit. Being dissatisfied, the wife has come up with the present first appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we agree with the learned Trial Judge that it is difficult to believe that the wife tried to kill the husband by squeezing his testicles. The two doctors' evidence, in this connection, has not proved any injury on the testicles of the husband when he was treated by them. The doctors merely stated that the husband alleged the incident before them, and on that basis, they prescribed medicine. The doctors themselves did not find any inflammation on the testicles of the husband.;