- (1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a husband, in a suit for restitution of conjugal life filed under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act 1954, and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th February, 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hooghly in Matrimonial Suit No. 309 of 2000, thereby dismissed the said suit.
(2.) BEING dissatisfied, the husband has preferred the present first appeal. The case made out by the appellant in the application under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act may be summed up thus: (a) The appellant married the respondent on 25th January, 2000 according to the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and thereafter, they lived as husband and wife at the residence of the appellant as mentioned in the cause-title. (b) Immediately after the said marriage, the respondent repeatedly asked the appellant to leave his residence and abandon his aged widowed mother who was seriously ill and to go to his father-in-law's house to become a domesticated son-in-law as the parents of the respondent have no son. The appellant protested against such proposal, and such protest fuelled the fire and being frustrated, the respondent started quarrelling with her husband and mother-in-law on flimsy grounds. It was noticed that the respondent was looked tired even after doing a little domestic work and preferred to take rest instead of helping her aged mother-in-law. (c) The appellant thought that the illness of the wife was temporary and would be cured in due course of time after taking rest and on treatment. However, during investigation and treatment of the respondent, it revealed that she was a patient of high blood sugar and anorexia, chronic in nature. The appellant treated the respondent by eminent physicians and also informed his father-in-law. At first, the father-in-law, tried to deny that illness but after consultation with the doctor, confessed that he had suppressed the material fact about the illness of the respondent before marriage and asked the appellant to bring back the respondent at her father's house for better treatment and rest. (d) On 1st June, 2000, the appellant went to the respondent's house and it was decided that the respondent would return back with the appellant at his house on the day of Jamai Sasthi as better treatment of the respondent could be made at Bandel where eminent physicians and doctors were available. Thereafter, in spite of repeated demand, the respondent refused to come back to the residence of the appellant. (e) The appellant on 2nd July, 2000 went to the house of the respondent to bring her back but the respondent refused to come back in presence of her parents without any reasonable excuse. Hence the suit. The suit was contested by the respondent by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the application for restitution of conjugal life and the defence taken by the respondent may be summed us thus: (i)After the very date of marriage, the mother-in-law of the respondent prevented the respondent from staying in the room of the appellant at night and she also used filthy languages to the respondent and told that she would not consider the respondent as her daughter-in-law unless and until, a further amount of Rs. 25,000/- was brought by the respondent from her father's house in spite of the fact that at the time of marriage, a total sum of Rs. 75,000/- was paid to the appellant. (ii)The mother of the appellant further told her that so long such demand was not satisfied the respondent would have to live in her house as a maidservant and gradually, started inflicting torture upon her. (iii) The appellant and his mother used to beat the respondent and did not give her food in spite of doing all the household works. Due to such torture, the respondent became ill but no arrangement was made for her treatment. The appellant sometime gave her tablets without any prescription for which the respondent became a patient of diabetes. Even the appellant and his mother threatened the respondent to kill her by pouring kerosene oil over her body. (iv) On 9th July, 2000, the parents of the respondent, together with other near relatives, went to the house of the appellant for making an amicable settlement of the dispute but the appellant and his mother drove them out of the house. The respondent again on 23rd August, 2000 sent her father to the appellant for requesting him to allow her to remain in the matrimonial house but the appellant and his mother again drove them away by using filthy languages. Ultimately, the respondent lodged a complaint at the Kalna Police Station on 24th August, 2000 under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and his mother and the said case is still pending.
(3.) AT the time of hearing of the suit, the appellant and his mother gave evidence in support of his case while the respondent herself and her mother deposed in opposing the claim. The learned Trial Judge by the judgment and decree dated 18th February, 2005 was pleased to dismiss the said application under Section 22 of the Special marriage Act, 1954.;