SANJOY DAS Vs. DIPANWITA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sanjoy married Dipanwita on December 7, 1995 according to Hindu rights and customs. Out of their wedlock a male child was born on November 19, 1997. The couple were passing their married life peacefully for about ten years when the dispute arose principally for extra marital affairs Sanjoy had with one of his co-actress in a theatre group where Sanjoy was also a member. Earlier Sanjoy had relationship with a married lady initially staying in the complex where Sanjoy was also residing. According to Sanjay, Dipanwita caused mental cruelty to him. She was not offering even a glass of water or a cup of tea when Sanjay used to come back from his office. Significant to note, although qualified, Dipanwita was housewife at that time. According to Sanjay, Dipanwita was not respectful to his aged parents. At one point of time, she caused injury to his aged father on the issue of touching of the child. Dipanwita did not like others to touch the child. Dipanwita abruptly left her matrimonial home. Sanjay went to take her back when he was ill-treated. Dipanwita lodged criminal complaint with the Police Station. She also spread scandal that caused mental cruelty to Sanjoy. The director of the theatre group rebuked him at the instance of Dipanwita. Dipanwita created a scene in the office of Sanjoy, thereby caused immense embarrassment to him.

(2.) On the allegations as above Sanjay prayed for divorce. Dipanwita contested the suit. In her written statement, she denied each and every allegation that was brought against her. According to her, she was respectful to her parents-in-law. She was also respectful to her husband. She also asserted about the extra-marital relationship, which Sanjay had with Suparna Mondal, a thespian belonging to the theatre group where Sanjoy was also a member. She also asserted that the other relationship that Sanjoy had with a married lady in the same complex, was disclosed by Sanjoy himself to her when she advised her husband for desisting from such activity. On the issue of injury, she claimed that it was an accident. The child was insisting upon staying with the aged father-in-law who needed rest. She was trying to forcefu[lly take back the child from the lap of the father-inlaw when accidentally he got hurt. On the issue of complain to the Police Station, she contended that Sanjoy and Suparna planned to leave India for good and arranged VISA for going to Australia. To desist Sanjoy, she had to lodge a complaint with the Police Station.

(3.) Sanjoy adduced evidence by himself and one of his friends being PW- 2 whereas Dipanwita adduced evidence only through herself. Sanjoy was consistent with his stand taken in the plaint while deposing as PW-1. In cross-examination, he denied of any extra marital relationship he had with Suparna or a married lady of the complex. He also denied having applied for Passport along with Suparna to plan to go to Australia and settle there. He admitted that he had supported Suparna being patient of mental depression. He also admitted that he brought her once in the house. His friend Abhijit Deb (PW- 2) admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the conjugal life of the couple. He also admitted that his knowledge was based upon what had been divulged to him by Sanjoy. He was not even present at the time of marriage.