- (1.) THIS First Appeal is at the instance of a husband in a suit for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19th March, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fifth Court, Alipore, in a Matrimonial Suit No. 9 of 2001, thereby dismissing the said suit for divorce.
(2.) BEING dissatisfied, the husband has come up with the present appeal. The appellant before us filed in the Court of the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas at Alipore, a suit, being Matrimonial Suit No. 1486 of 1997, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce against the respondent. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the Fifth Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore, and was renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 9 of 2001.
(3.) THE case made out by the appellant may be summed up thus: (a) The parties to the proceeding came in contact with the each other during the period of 1986-1990 and subsequently, the respondent had conceived though not legally married. Consequently, the members of the families of the parties took decision that they should be immediately married and accordingly, on 18th January, 1991 the relatives of the parties put vermilion on the respondent in her house. Subsequently, the parties had also gone to the Marriage Registrar, namely, one Sri Ajit Kumar Bose, at 6, fern Road, Calcutta 700 019 and an application for registration of marriage as per Hindu Marriage Act was submitted. It was subsequently found that Sri Bose had no power of registration of marriage at the material point of time. (b) Be that as it may, the parties to the suit had been living as husband and wife within the jurisdiction of District South 24-Parganas and the marriage was consummated after the parties had gone through their marriage ceremony in the presence of the relatives on 15th April, 1991. Subsequently, the respondent had a miscarriage and she again conceived and finally gave birth to a daughter on 24th July, 1993 at Ramkrishna Mission Seva Pratisthan, 99, Sarat Bose Road, Calcutta. (c) After marriage, it was detected that the respondent had totally changed in her words, action, behaviour, etc. towards the appellant for the reason not known to the appellant. It further appeared that she was insolent and did not spare even the parents-in-law and other relations. (d) Some of the instances of the cruel/inhuman treatment of the respondent towards the appellant were described as follows: (i) The respondent in each and every month used to snatch away the entire salary from the appellant and any kind of resistance or protest at the instance of appellant made the respondent furious and the appellant had to beg from the respondent for his pocket expenses. The respondent even was reluctant to pay to the parentsin-law the amount of monthly family expenses and any kind of request to pay the family expenses would make her fuming and she threatened to commit suicide so that not only the appellant but also his parents would be put into prison and humiliation. The respondent also threatened to call the local people and create scene to humiliate the members of the family of the appellant. (ii) On 8th March, 1994, the respondent assaulted or attempted to assault the appellant and also abused the appellant with filthy language on several occasions and blamed the appellant that he had illicit connection with other women. (iii) Such suspicious behaviour gradually increased and it became impossible for the appellant to live in the matrimonial home as husband and wife with dignity and prestige. (iv) On 13th December, 1995, there were occasions when the respondent drove out the appellant with kicks and blows at dead of night and the appellant was compelled to sleep under the staircase. (v) In the event, the appellant protested against such inhuman behaviour of the respondent, she would become violent and attempt to draw sympathy from neighbours by shouting and the appellant, for saving family prestige used to remain silent. (vi) The respondent even did not allow the appellant to go to the friends and relatives' house but used to compel him to remain in the house. (vii) The respondent was very much suspicious about the character of the appellant and if the appellant had talked to any woman who was known to the appellant, the respondent suspected the appellant and warned the appellant not to talk with such woman. (viii) The respondent made the life of the appellant miserable by her attitude, behaviour and words and the appellant lost his pleasure and personal liberty of the life. The appellant further lodged a complaint with the local police station and prayed for interference of the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi but the authority informed the appellant by a letter dated 14th September, 1996 that as a complaint had been lodged with the local police station, they had nothing to do. (ix) Due to the aforesaid cruel behaviours of the respondent, the appellant had reasonable apprehension in his mind that it would not be safe to live with the respondent in the matrimonial house for which the appellant was compelled to live separately from the respondent and in fact, the appellant had been living separately from 9th July, 1997 and, thus, it can be said that the respondent had deserted the appellant. Hence the suit. ;