- (1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a wife in a proceeding for divorce and is directed against the decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, calcutta dated 9th November, 2004 passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 398 of 1993 thereby passing a decree for divorce not only on the ground of cruelty but also on the ground that the wife was suffering from mental disorder.
(2.) BEING dissatisfied, the wife has come up with the present first appeal. The respondent/husband filed a suit being Matrimonial Suit No. 48 of 1990 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta under Section 13 (1) (ia) (iii) of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955 against the present appellant/wife on the ground of cruelty and mental disorder of the wife. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the Principal Family Court, Calcutta and was renumbered as Matrimonial Suit no. 398 of 1995.
(3.) THE case made out by the husband in the application for divorce may be summed up thus: a) The parties were married on 11th August, 1986 according to Hindu Rites and Customs at the fathers house of the wife at 31/1c, Beadon Row within the jurisdiction of the Court. After the marriage, the parties lived together as husband and wife at the residence of the husband at P 42, dr. A. K. Pal Road Extension, Calcutta-700034 where the marriage between the parties was consummated and on 7th August, 1987 a female child was born in the wedlock of the parties. b) At the time of marriage, the husband was living with his old ailing widowed mother, one unmarried sister and one unmarried elder brother at the aforesaid residence. c) From the very beginning, the wifes conduct and behaviour was found disappointing and apathetic towards the husband and others members of his family and without any cogent reason, she often became excited on trifle matters; she quarrelled and abused the husband and his near relatives in filthy, slang and abusive language shouting at the top of her voice and going outside the house thereby drawing attention of outsiders and putting the husband and the members of his family in utter embarrassment and humiliation. d) The wife was not willing to do the formal household work or to discharge her normal duties as a housewife. She did not take care of her husband, her old ailing mother-in-law and the elder brother-in-law nor had she any regard for them. All the persuasions and requests by the husband to the wife to do household duties and to discharge her obligations as a modest housewife would only result in insult, disrespect and abuse in slang and vulgar languages from the wife. Any slightest or mild protest on the part of the husband invariably excited the wife and she started shouting and this became a regular feature during the stay of the wife at the residence of her husband. e) The conduct and demeanour of the wife during her stay at the husbands house was gradually found to be absolutely abnormal and unnatural as would appear from the following amongst other relevant facts and circumstances, chronologically set out below: i) On 3rd February, 1987 on the occasion of the Swaraswati Puja, several friends and relatives of the husband came to his house. The husband requested the wife to attend and meet the guests as a usual courtesy. The wife not only refused to meet the guests and visitors or to entertain them but also ultimately became so violent that she abused the husband in dirty languages in the presence of the guests and complained that her father had not sent her to the matrimonial home for doing the work of a maidservant. The husband requested the wife with folded hands to keep silent but in vain. ii) During her stay in matrimonial home, the wife very often picked up quarrel with the husbands unmarried sister and abused her by describing her as a daughter of a prostitute. When the husband rebuked the wife for such ugly utterance, the wife abused him and did not even spare to comment against husbands mother or unmarried elder brother, who held responsible post in a nationalised bank for which the husband had to think of living in separate mess. iii) Due to abnormal behaviour of the wife towards her husband, the mother-in-law and the members of the family and others, grave doubts arose in the mind of the husband as regards her mental soundness and stability. In his anxiety, the husband narrated everything to his mother-in-law in the early part of 1987 expressing his apprehension as regards mental disorder of the respondent when the wifes mother assured the husband by saying that in course of pregnancy such type of trouble might arise and the same was temporary, for which the husband should not worry. She further assured that after the delivery of the child, the temporary phase of abnormal behaviour would disappear. iv) On 26th July, 1989, the husbands mother became seriously ill. Incidentally, on that day the wife had to go her paternal house. Considering the illness of the mother of the husband, he requested the wife to come back the very next day. The next day when the wife did not come back, the husband went to the respondents fathers house to bring her back as his mother was very ill. At first, the wife agreed to come back, but soon thereafter, she changed her mind and refused to return to her matrimonial home and insulted the husband by using slang and abusive language in the presence of her mother. v) On 7th August, 1987 the wife had given birth to a female child and stayed at her fathers house up to 25th September, 1987. On 26th september, 1987 the wife along with her child was brought to the matrimonial home. It was then expected that after the birth of the child, the behaviour of the wife would change. But to the utter disappointment of the husband, it was found that the wifes behaviour towards the husband, her mother-in-law and others became more rude, rough and abnormal. vi) For want of sufficient accommodation in the husbands family after the delivery of the child, the husband had to sleep for a few days in another room. At that time, the wife became was so cruel that she would not even allow the husband to have access to the child. One night, while the husband had to accompany a neighbour to hospital, the husband knocked the door of her bedroom which was bolted from inside, to fetch his dresses. The respondent at first refused to open the door and when she opened, she abused the husband in filthy languages loudly within the hearing of the neighbours. vii) On 3rd November, 1987 the wifes mother and sister paid a visit to the house of the husband. In their presence, the wife shouted loudly abusing the husband and his mother and sister using filthy languages. Being very much ashamed and embarrassed, the wifes mother and sister immediately left the house of the husband and subsequently, on 4th November, 1987 the wife left the house with the child. viii) During the period between November, 1987 and February, 1988, the wife was with her mother at her paternal house and kept no contact with the husband nor did she inform anything about herself or the child. Observing the aforesaid behaviour, the husband again approached his mother-in-law and requested her to consult a psychiatrist for examining the respondent and to consider the husbands suggestion. There was a meeting at the residence of a common well-wisher where the respondent, her mother, sister, brother, sisters husband and the husband, his elder brother, mother and common friends were present. In the said meeting, it was decided that a psychiatrist would be consulted and accordingly, the wife was examined by Dr. A. K. Mullick, a psychiatrist and the said doctor suggested a marital therapy for the respondent. But for the reasons best known to the wife and the member of her family, she refused to appear for marital therapy and the proposed treatment could not be continued. f) The husband, an employee of the United Bank of India, was transferred in the month of September, 1988 to Gopiballavpur Branch of the said Bank in the District of Midnapore and he joined his duty on 18th January, 1989. Prior to his transfer, the husband had shifted his residence from P 42, DR. A. K. Paul Road to P 48, Dakshin Behala Road, Calcutta with the members of his family. On 1st May, 1989 the wifes brother and relatives brought the wife to the husbands said Calcutta residence and keeping her there, they left the husbands house to avoid responsibility to treat the wife as suggested. Coming back to her matrimonial home, the wife as usual started quarrelling, shouting and abusing and making it impossible for the members of the husbands family to bear her cruelty and misbehaviour. g) To avoid bitterness, the husband came to Calcutta and took the respondent to his residence at Midnapore which was near to his place of work at Gopiballavpur with the expectation that a change of place might have some good effect on the mental condition of the respondent. But the behaviour of the wife became crueler and was found to be depressed and dejected all the time showing signs of frustration and mentally upset. h) Being apprehensive about the mental condition of the wife, the husband brought her to Calcutta for immediate treatment. She was then found to be absolutely indifferent to the child and was physically and mentally incapable of looking after the child. As a precautionary measure, the husband put up the wife at his paternal aunts house near Hati Bagan, calcutta for the treatment of the wife. On 1st September, 1989 the husband contacted Dr. Gobinda Sen, a psychiatrist, who examined the wife and prescribed certain medicines and advised a psycho diagnosis test of the wife. Dr. Sen asked the husband to report about the health of the wife after the suggested medical test was done, a month thereafter. Soon after the examination by Dr. Sen, the wife refused to undergo the suggested medical test as advised by the doctor. i) Thereafter, the husband had to leave Calcutta to join his duty at midnapore. He took with him the wife leaving the child with his mother at Calcutta. In Midnapore, the wife at the request of the husband regularly consumed the medicine prescribed by Dr. Sen and a noticeable change and improvement was seen in the behaviour of the wife. To report about the heath of the wife to Dr. Sen, the husband came back with the wife for her treatment and again put up at his aunts house. After coming to Calcutta, the wife contacted her mother and relatives and refused to take medicine or to have her examined by the doctor. After passing of puja vacation, the husband along with the wife had to leave for midnapore to join his duty. j) During her stay at Midnapore, this time the mental condition of the wife deteriorated and her behaviour towards husband became intolerable. She never cooked for the husband and almost daily, the husband had to go to office without taking meal. On one occasion, the wife in course of conversation with the husband became furious and attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene oil on her body. The husband somehow managed to save the wife and the situation. k) On 27th October, 1989, while the husband was in his office the wife tried to commit suicide by taking several pills. She became seriously ill and the husband somehow averted the crisis and avoided a police investigation in the matter. l) Considering the alarming turn of the situation from bad to worse, husband immediately sent words to the wifes mother, brother and other relatives who came to Midnapore on 30th October, 1998. In their presence, and in the presence of some local respectable people, a joint sitting was held and it was decided that the wife would be brought to calcutta for treatment. m) On 5th November, 1989, the husband along with wife came down to calcutta to join his training course as well as for the medical treatment of the wife, and she was kept at the husbands aunts house. This time as per advice of Dr. Govinda Sen, the husband did psycho diagnosis test of the wife at Bodhodaya. n) In order to get a second opinion in the matter, the husband on 22nd november, 1989 contacted Dr. Subir Bal, a renowned psychiatrist and consulted with him with reference to the said medical report. Dr. Bal also examined the wife and in his prescription advised for admission of the respondent in a mental home. o) In the night on 22nd November, 1989, without the knowledge, information and consent of inmates of the husbands aunts house, the wife abruptly left the house for her fathers house at Beadon Row, Calcutta, and since then she had been living there. She had refused to come to the husbands house. From the aforesaid fact it was apparent that the respondent was suffering from mental disorder including psychotic disturbances, schizophrenic in nature along with certain amount of depression. The wife was mentally and physically incapable of taking care of or looking after the child. Hence the suit for divorce. ;