SUPRIYA CHATTERJEE Vs. BIBEKANANDA MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Smt. Supriya Chatterjee (hereinafter referred to as Supriya) preferred the instant appeal from the judgment and decree dated October 3, 1994 passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 39 of 1993 by Sri A.K. Sadhu, Additional District Judge, Alipore, 24-Parganas(S) against Sri Bibekananda Mukherjee (hereinafter referred to as Bibek), the plaintiff/respondent. Supriya was a resident of Dhanbad. Her brother Amitava was a friend of Bibek. In 1973 Supriya got married. In or about 1982 Supriya came to Calcutta and started residing at YWCA Hostel. Amitava requested Bibek to look after her in Calcutta as she had no other near relation or friend at Calcutta. In 1983 during her stay in Calcutta Supriya got friendly with Bibek. In 1983 Supriya's marriage with first husband was dissolved by a decree of divorce. In 1984 Bibek purchased a flat at Ranikuthi after obtaining loan from HDFC. According to Supriya, Supriya also helped Bibek by granting him financial assistance while purchasing the said flat. Supriya is a cost accountant and is attached to a Government Undertaking. In 1985 Supriya shifted from YWCA Hostel and started residing with her friend at Kalighat upto 1987. During this period on or about June 25, 1986 both Bibek and Supriya decided to marry and accordingly got married under the provisions of Special Marriage Act. However, curiously the said marriage was not disclosed to the friends and relations of both of them. Even after the marriage Supriya stayed with her friend. After obtaining possession of the Ranikuthi flat Supriya started living in the said flat. According to Supriya both Supriya and Bibek started marital life on and from 1st May, 1987 at the said Ranikuthi flat and from then they lived together at the said flat until the period stated hereinafter. However according to Bibek they never lived together and the said marriage was nothing but a paper marriage.

(2.) On or about November 11, 1987 both of them filed a divorce proceedings by consent. However, the same was dismissed for default as on the date fixed for hearing the parties did not attend the Court. According to Supriya, she did not know the date fixed for hearing and according to Bibek Supriya changed her mind and started blackmailing him by demanding a fanciful sum alongwith Ranikuthi flat to be transferred in her name.

(3.) In December 1990 Bibek executed a power of attorney and executed an agreement for sale in favour of Supriya in respect of Ranikuthi flat. According to Bibek, the said power of attorney and the agreement for sale were signed by Bibek under compulsive circumstances at the instance of Supriya. According to Bibek, he had also executed a will simultaneously bequeathing the Ranikuthi flat in favour of Supriya wherein Supriya had been described as cousin sister of Bibek. According to Bibek, all the three documents were prepared by the Advocate at the instance and at the dictate of Supriya. The said three documents were signed by Bibek at a time when he was planning to go to Italy after procuring job there. Bibek also alleged that 2/3 days before he left for Italy Supriya rushed to his Bunsdroni residence and snatched away all papers and documents in connection with the Ranikuthi flat and other banking documents. From 1990-92 there were series of letters exchanged between Bibek and Supriya. Supriya's letters to Bibek were however not disclosed in the proceedings. From the letters addressed by Bibek to Supriya strange relationship appear between the parties. In all those letters not a single statement had been made by Bibek which could support the story of snatching papers or execution of documents or Will under compulsive circumstances. On the contrary most of those letters are nothing but written instructions to Supriya to do all personal work as also bank work on behalf of Bibek which logically supports the execution of the power of attorney by Bibek involving Supriya. There are as many as 18 letters from Italy and/or from other places from Bibek to Supriya out of which, one or two could depict that Bibek was worried about Supriya or her health. It is curious that those letters did not show any semblance of sentimental attachment between a husband and wife. More so when they were residing separately because of occupational hazard. We however, have been deprived of the other version as we could not examine the letters of Supriya to Bibek as those were not tendered in evidence.