SK. MANIRUDDIN Vs. SOMA BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Hooghly in Matrimonial Suit No. 391 of 2013 by which the learned trial Court dismissed the matrimonial suit which was filed by the respondent/wife against the appellant/husband praying for dissolution of marriage under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") and also dismissed the counter-claim with direction to live separately from each other by way of judicial separation.

(2.) Admittedly, the parties were married according to Special Marriage Act on 05.01.1998 registered before the Marriage Registrar, Chinsurah, Hooghly. The respondent/wife prayed for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. The case of the respondent/wife is that she is a Hindu by religion, while the appellant/husband is a Muslim male and they got acquainted through their common friend and gradually became affectionate to each other. It was the further case of the respondent/wife that their common friend Anjana Pal made a proposal to the appellant/husband to marry the respondent/wife and the appellant/husband agreed to the proposal. Although she was not ready to marry but she was told to get the marriage registered. Subsequently, marriage of the parties was solemnized before the Marriage Registrar, Hooghly, on 05.01.1998 according to the provisions of the said Act. Subsequently, she filed a title suit being T.S. No. 74 of 1998 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly praying for a declaration that she was a bachelor and the certificate of marriage was not acted upon. However, the said suit was dismissed being non- maintainable and against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly, an appeal was preferred before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Hooghly but the appeal was also dismissed on 26.09.2005. Thereafter, MAT Suit No. 76 of 2006 was filed by her for annulment of marriage and although in that suit, a decree was passed in favour of her, but in appeal, this Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It was the further case of the respondent/wife that since 1998, she was residing in her father's house while the appellant/husband was living in his house and the appellant/husband had never shown any interest to bring her to his house. It was also contended that although the appellant/husband earned Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) only per month but he never sent any money for her maintenance. It was also contended that the appellant/husband married her by suppressing material facts and he even threatened her personally as well as through his men. It was further contended that both the parties were living separately for more than fourteen (14) years and the marital tie has irretrievably broken down and, therefore, a decree of divorce may be passed in her favour. The application for dissolution of marriage was filed in the Court of learned District Judge, Hooghly at Chinsurah on 17.04.2013.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellant/husband by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that in 1993, the parties got acquainted with each other at Vidyasagar Mela held at Birshingha Village of Midnapur District. Gradually, they developed love for each other and they used to travel together at various places and their family members also visited each other's house. At one point of time, the father of the respondent/wife restricted movement of her and at that time the respondent/wife would put pressure upon him for registration of marriage and thereafter their marriage was registered. It was further contended that the marriage was pre-planned and known to all the friends of the parties. The appellant/husband denied all allegations of torture and neglect and contended that due to ill advice of others, respondent/wife filed the suits with false and fictitious claims for which they failed to lead peaceful conjugal life. The appellant/husband by way of counter-claim prayed for restitution of conjugal rights. In reply to the counter claim, the respondent/wife contended that prayer was made by appellant/husband only to show his good gesture but he had no intention to live with her.