- (1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a husband in a suit for divorce and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th July, 2006, passed by the Additional District Judge, Third Court, Barasat, in Matrimonial Suit No. 19/1996 thereby dismissing the suit with the finding that the appellant could not prove the allegations made in the application for divorce. Being dissatisfied, the husband has come up with the present first appeal.
(2.) THE appellant before us filed a suit under Section 13 (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the Court of learned District Judge, North 24 Parganas at Barasat thereby giving rise to Matrimonial Suit No. 1038 of 1995. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the Third Court of Additional District Judge, Barasat, and was renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 19 of 1996.
(3.) THE case made out by the appellant in the petition for divorce may be summed up thus. a) The parties were married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 2nd July, 1988 in the house of the respondent's father at Andool Mouri. After marriage, both the parties lived together as husband and wife in the house of the appellant at 4, Shyam Nagar Road, P. S. Dum Dum. In the said wedlock, a female child was born on 23rd September, 1989 and the said child is in custody of the respondent/wife. b) From the very first stage after the marriage, the appellant observed that the respondent was arrogant and ill-tempered but the appellant ignored the same with the hope that the respondent would change or mend herself in future. From the very beginning, the respondent had no intention to stay in her matrimonial home and on some pretext or other, she used to leave the matrimonial home without the consent of the appellant and would stay out of her own volition at her father's house for unlimited period against the wishes of the appellant and his other members of the family. It appeared that respondent did not have any mind to come back to her matrimonial home and to lead a conjugal life with her husband. Whenever the appellant or his guardian would go to take her back, she would seldom come and stay at matrimonial home. c) During her stay at her matrimonial home, the appellant observed that the respondent had some biased ideas about the appellant's old parents and could not tolerate them at all. It appeared that the parents of the appellant were unwanted persons to her. The old ailing mother of the appellant would cook and serve food regularly and the respondent used to threat the appellant that she would not stay in her matrimonial home if anyone would compel her to do the household works. The respondent frequently used to hurl filthy and abusive languages towards the appellant and others members of his family including his parents. The respondent even did not show any courtesy to offer a glass of water to the appellant when needed. The respondent would often terrorize the appellant and his parents with the threat that she would commit suicide if they stood in her way to go to her father's house and for that purpose she would sprinkle kerosene oil on her saree with a matchstick. d) The appellant on several occasions requested the respondent to refrain from frequently visiting to the house of her father but the respondent paid no heed to such appeal and would stay at her father's house for indefinite point of time. e) The respondent used to ignore and neglect the appellant as his income was not enough to meet the unending demands of the respondent. The petitioner was a Lower Division Clerk of Education Directorate, Government of West Bengal and during marriage negotiation, the guardian of the appellant did not suppress anything to the parents of the respondent with regard to the appellant's income. The appellant was not a man of her choice at any point of time and she expressed this view impliedly and expressly through her conduct and she did not hesitate to tarnish the prestige of the appellant in the presence of his relations and guests in the house. She used to utter her abusive and filthy languages towards the appellant in the presence of his relatives and guests and stigmatised his manhood. f) Finally on 7th July, 1994 on the plea of escorting her minor daughter to the school at Dum Dum, she voluntarily left the matrimonial home without the consent of the appellant or his parents. Subsequently, she sought to justify her departure on account of alleged inhuman torture on her daughter by the appellant's younger brother by picturing herself as a paragon of virtue. Since then, the respondent had been living in her paternal home. g) On 20th August, 1994, the respondent's mother and her married sister invaded the house of the appellant and wanted to take back the school books and other article of the daughter of the parties whom she had already got admitted in K. G. School at Mouri Gram but did not disclose such fact to the appellant who admitted the daughter in a School at Dum Dum in good faith. h) It is shocking for the appellant that before the birth of the daughter on 23rd August, 1989, nothing was disclosed to the appellant by the respondent and her parents and everything relating to birth of the child was kept in dark before the appellant and her parents. For the reasons best known to them, the child was born in a Nursing Home at sibpore. Even for performing scissorian operation, no permission was taken from the appellant. i) The respondent and her father on many occasions came to the working place of the appellant at Writers' Building and at Bikash Bhavan and suppressing the material fact, the respondent pretended innocence and instigated a section of the employees of the said office to tease and exploit the appellant. Accordingly, on 29th June, 1995, the pay-day, the respondent came to Bikash Bhavan and snatched away Rs. 1620/- forcibly and illegally from the pay-packet of the petitioner. Due to the instigation of the respondent, the appellant was unable to work in his working place and his relation with his colleagues has become hostile for no fault on his part. j) Lastly on 31st July, 1995, the next pay-day, in anticipation of further snatching of salary as occurred earlier on 29th June, 1995 the appellant took his old father with him to his office at Bikash Bhavan. At the instigation of the respondent, the father of the appellant was manhandled and driven out. The appellant was threatened with loss of his job and life if he would not pay half of the salary to the respondent although the appellant had no intention to deprive his wife and daughter of maintenance and other amenities within the financial capacity of the appellant. The aforesaid acts on the part of the respondent amounted to cruelty. Hence the suit. ;