Bijayesh Mukherji, J. - (1.) The history of this matrimonial litigation by the husband Bejoy Daw, now appellant, against his wife Aloka Daw, now respondent, for restitution of conjugal rights divides itself into four stages- I.August 14, 1957, when Bejoy aged 30 or thereabouts and Aloka aged 20 or thereabouts, Hindus both, were married according to Hindu rites, to May 1S58, when Bejoy reached Aloka from the matrimonial home to her mother's place at 92-A Bhupendra Bose Avenue, Calcutta, for her impending confinement. II. February 3, 1958, from when Bejoy started inflicting upon Aloka vitriolic letters, to November 26, 1958, when Bejoy sent his younger brother with a chit to Aloka, making a peremptory demand for return, through the bearer of the chit, of all ornaments and articles given her by all his people, threatening her with dire consequences in case of non-compliance with such ultimatum, and carrying out the threat by having swooped down upon his wife's place an act which led to a rough and-tumble or maramari, as both Bejoy and Aloka, in the midst of their so many differences, put it in their evidence. During this period, to be precise, on or about July 20, 1958, Aloka was delivered of a female child, III. August 8, 1860, from when Bcjoy started writing one letter after another, mostly to Aloka, one to her eldest brother, and one to her mother, pleading for Aloka's return to the matrimonial home, with the precaution of sending such letters by registered post with acknowledgment due and keeping a carbon copy of each to March 28, 1962, when Bejoy's matrimonial suit No. 2 of 1961 against Aloka instituted on January 3, 1961, for judicial separation, was permitted to be withdrawn, with costs; Aloka pressed for and the judge granted. IV. April 1, 1962, from when Bejoy took to writing letters again, mostly to Aloka and one to her brother Mrityunjoy Datta, C/o. Reliance Stores (Pvt.) Ltd., 92-A Bhupendra Bose Avenue, Calcutta, with the same type of double precaution: (i) by registered post with acknowledgment due and (ii) by keeping a carbon copy of each, the refrain of which letters is that Aloka, whose return to the matrimonial home is longed for, should come back soon enough, to September 4. 1962, when the present cause, matrimonial suit No. 73 of 1902, for restitution of conjugal rights was instituted--a cause which has been dismissed and out of which the appeal, we are now adjudicating, has arisen,
(2.) The first stage presents no problem. The correspondence that is seen in and about this period is quite the normal exchange of letters to and from between Bejoy and Aloka, the newly married couple. Here is a resume of such letters, interspersed with comments, resting on evidence:
(3.) [After giving the resume of the letters, their Lordships proceeded]. Such contemporaneous letters speak for themselves. Leaving aside periodic small rubs -- and a married life which is free from any such rub must be rare indeed -- what we see is a happy couple, one pining for the other. So, up to the end of December 1957, there happened little to break the home, no matter what the mutual recriminations of Bejoy and Aloka have been in the prior litigation --matrimonial suit No. 2 of 1961--or here. Taking our stand on this, after we had had an exhaustive opening from Mr. Bankim Dutt, appearing for Bejoy, we proceeded to do our duty, in terms of Section 23, Sub-section (2), of the Hindu Marriage Act, 25 of 1955, to bring about a reconciliation between Bejoy and Aloka, in the fond hope that they would go back to those happy days of August-December 1957 and start their life over again from there, completely blotting out from their mind all that had happened meanwhile, irrespective of the right or wrong of either. We, therefore, invited them to our chamber, putting aside their counsel, as indeed counsel themselves wanted us to do, and pleaded with Bejoy and Aloka to give their married life a trial at the least for a month, to start with. But our pleading went in vain. Aloka was in dread of Bejoy who, she apprehended, would arrange things in such a manner that it would facilitate his having a divorce on false allegations. She therefore, expressed her determination not to return to the matrimonial home even for a month. Bejoy addressed her, with our permission, and pointed out to her that three lives -- her own, Bejoy's and the child's--were being ruined by her intransigence. But she remained adamant, because for her husband's past conduct and utterances. Since that was troubling Aloka, we suggested to Bejoy whether or not he could see his way to express sincere regret for what she was feeling sore about. Bejoy said; "If you so direct, I am ready to express my regret." We at once made it clear, direct we would not, for reconciliation is reconciliation, not coercion, far less judicial coercion. But an expression of regret would even not move Aloka a whit, because she was unable to rely upon her husband's word. So, it was futile to proceed further and, much to our disappointment, our endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties failed. For that, we blame neither Aloka nor Bejoy. If Aloka is within her right to refuse to return to the matrimonial home, Bejoy is equally within his right not to go further than he has gone. We, therefore, enter into the merits of the appeal with an open mind, and without the slightest prejudice to either, for the stance each takes, during our attempt to effect a reconciliation.;