- (1.) THIS first appeal is at the instance of a husband in a suit for divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty and is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 4, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, First Court, Serampore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 26 of 2000 thereby dismissing the suit with the finding that the husband had failed to prove the grounds of cruelty and desertion as alleged in the plaint.
(2.) THE appellant/husband filed an application for divorce being Matrimonial Suit No. 26 of 2000 in the Court of the leaned District Judge, Chinsurah, against the respondent/wife which was subsequently transferred to the Fast Track Court, First Court, Serampore, and the case made out by the husband in the application for divorce may be summarised thus: a) The parties were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 16th January, 1981 on the basis of negotiation of the parents of the parties. At the time of marriage, the husband was an Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Mechanical Division under Department of Irrigation and Waterways, Government of West Bengal and was posted at Khatra in the district of Bankura. The respondent was then a student of B. Ed. and B. Lib. (Sc.) of Calcutta University. After the marriage ceremony, the respondent went with the husband to this paternal house at Konnagar and after the 'baubhat' ceremony, she went back to her parents' house at B. K. Pal avenue, Calcutta and continued her stay till completion of her studies and publication of result of B. Ed. and B. Lib (Sc. ). b) During the said period, the respondent used to visit the husband's house at Konnagar once in a month when the husband used to come to his parents' house at Konnagar from Bankura and the moment the husband left for Bankura, his place of posting, the respondent went back to her parents' house. c) This system and practice continued up to the month of March, 1983 when the respondent went to Bankura for living with the husband and lived there for 14/15 months. During the said period, the respondent used to visit her parents at Calcutta in the every weekend from Bankura. d) While living together at Bankura, the respondent conceived and immediately thereafter, on the advice of her parents, she went to Calcutta for prenuptial treatment by her parents and the request of the husband to stay at his Konnagar house under the care, control and custody of his mother and sisters was refused by the wife causing serious mental stress and strain on the husband. e) However, to avoid unnecessary bitterness and for welfare of the wife and the baby, the husband had to accept her stay at her parents' house at calcutta and the husband used to contact personally or through his relations. However, the behaviour and attitude of the respondent and particularly, her father, was very authoritative, erratic and uncultured. Her father used to dominate the husband and his other relations and even his parents. Due to such unrefined behaviour, the husband did not keep any contact with the respondent and the respondent as well as her parents and other members stopped all contacts with the husband since her living at her parents' house during pregnancy. f) Subsequently, the husband came to know that a female baby was born in the wedlock on 1st September, 1984 but neither the respondent nor her parents or other relations officially intimated the husband or his parents or other relations the news of the birth of the baby. g) Since returning from Bankura, the respondent did neither visit the Konnagar house or Bankura house nor did she keep any information about the husband or his relations and from such conduct, it appeared to the husband that the respondent was not interested to maintain the marriage-tie although the husband from time to time contacted the respondent and her relations. h) The husband, in the meantime, came to know that the respondent secured a government job in the UGC scale with the Directorate of Education, Government of West Bengal and became competent to look after and maintain both herself and her minor daughter without depending on anybody. i) In the year 1988-89, the mother of the husband developed cancer and was then suffering therefrom when the husband contacted with the father of the respondent with a request to send the respondent along with her daughter to her in-laws' house at Konnagar so that the mother of the husband could see and met with her granddaughter prior to her death but the respondent and her parents did not adhere to such request. Ultimately, the mother of the husband died in the month of December, 1989 but the respondent even being intimated did not bother to attend the last rites of the mother of the husband. Even before her death, the father of the husband wrote a personal and appealing letter to the father of the respondent so that the mother of the husband might die in peace after seeing the granddaughter but good sense did not prevail upon the respondent or her parents or the relations. Due to such behaviour and conduct, the husband suffered serious mental agony and anguish which amounted to mental cruelty. j) Immediately after the death of the mother, the father of the husband had fallen ill and because of mental and physical sufferance, the father died sometime in May, 1993 when in spite of communication to the respondent, she failed and neglected to attend to her father-in-law during his illness or for performing his last rites. Such act also caused serious mental anguish and agony in the mind of the husband. k) Since the death of the mother in the year 1989 and even prior to that since the time of pregnancy of the respondent, there was no connection between the husband and wife as they were living separately. l) The husband wanted to bring back the respondent along with her daughter and for that purpose, he went to B. K. Pal Avenue and stayed a night to convince the respondent to come and reside at his house at Konnagar but the respondent was bent upon not budge an inch from her stance that she was not meant for living outside Calcutta and did not feel for the husband. m) From the aforesaid conduct, behaviour and attitude of the respondent, it seemed to the husband that she had willingly and voluntarily withdrawn herself from her matrimonial home and as such, they were living separately for more than 15 years. Hence the suit for divorce on the ground of desertion and mental cruelty.
(3.) THE suit was contested by the wife by filing written statement thereby denying the material allegations made in the application for divorce and the defence of the wife may be summed up thus: 1) Immediately after the 'boubhat' ceremony held on 18th January, 1981, the husband left for his office at Khatra on the next day in spite of repeated request from his father to stay a few days more by extending his leave. The respondent used to stay in her in-laws' house after completion of B. Ed. , B. Lib. (Sc.) course. At that time, her position in the in-laws' house was just like a captive. The respondent was not allowed to go outside and was made to work from the morning till night. The husband used to send letters to his parents but under direction of the parents, no letter was sent to the respondent direct. 2) The in-laws of the respondent created various mental and physical tortures towards the respondent and she was not provided with proper foods. The family members of the respondent were not allowed to spend more than 15 minutes to talk with the respondent when they visited at the in-laws' house of the respondent. The father-in-law of the respondent asked the respondent to get some money from the father of the respondent for construction work on the first floor. The respondent objected in this regard, as a result of which, a coconut was made to fall on the head of the respondent's father at the instance of the second brother of the husband who was later sent to jail custody for his misconduct at Khatra. 3) Scenting danger, the father of the respondent requested the father-in-law of the respondent to send her to Khatra, the place of posting of the husband, but the father-in-law turned down such proposal. The respondent fell ill very frequently and one day, the respondent heard her mother-in-law saying that she would utilize the ornaments of the respondent as dowry for her first daughter's marriage after the death of the respondent. The respondent suspected foul play of poisoning her by her stepmother-in-law and this was also the view of the maidservant working in the in-laws' house. 4) On the next morning, the respondent alone left Konnagar and came to her father's place leaving behind everything and her father, on hearing from the local people did not send the respondent back for fear of her life but the husband of the respondent did not pay a farthing to the respondent while she was in her father's house. On contacting the officers at Khatra of the Irrigation and Waterways Department, the father of the respondent, her mother and aunt took her to Khatra. The husband seeing the respondent was irritated and asked the respondent to leave the place at once. The husband used to give only five rupees when he went to Konnagar for his father's place for a fortnight. 5) After the marriage, the respondent learnt that the mother, brothers and sisters of the husband were really the stepmother, stepbrothers and stepsisters respectively of the husband. The two stepsisters went to Khatra who stayed there for a month and did great mischief to the respondent by making wild propaganda against her. The irritated people at Khatra unanimously gave the verdict that these sisters should leave Khatra at once. Ultimately, the respondent conceived and left Khatra for her father's place in Calcutta. 6) The husband never paid for her medical treatment and the father of the respondent had to bear all the expenses for the delivery of the child. It was denied that the respondent used to go to B. K. Pal Avenue from Khatra every Saturday. 7) After departure from Khatra, the husband with his brother Srijan Acharya distributed one obnoxious leaflet stating filthy matters against the father of the respondent and the respondent with the help of a rickshaw puller and the people caught him red handed and shaved his head and on a complaint by the local Executive Engineer to the Inspector of Police, he was sent to police custody. From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the respondent was tortured by the in-laws since the very beginning of the marriage and lastly, was deserted by her husband. The suit was, thus, liable to be dismissed. ;