TAPAN CHAKRABORTY Vs. ANJALI CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner husband is the appellant. He filed Matrimonial Suit No. 685 of 1987 at Alipore for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was married to the respondent on the 10th of May, 1968 according to Hindu rites and customs. The petitioner is an engineer and obtained HMC in Mechanical Engineering from the U.K. The parties did not dispute that for some time, after the marriage, the relationship between the two continued to be good. Out of the wedlock, two female children were born to the parties. The petitioner had a business and it continued smoothly till November, 1985, when the workshop of the petitioner came to be under lock-out. The petitioner averred that he had a very good income from the business and the paternal properties and the respondent could live a luxurious life. But since November, 1985, as stated by the petitioner, there was a financial stringency. It was alleged that since then, the respondent started misbehaving towards the petitioner by abusing and in other ways. The petitioner also made out a case that the respondent suspected that the petitioner had illicit relation with other women. The petitioner felt hurt because the respondent abused him in the presence of the children. For sometime past, according to the petitioner, the respondent along with her children, were living separately from the petitioner. It was summed up that the matrimonial ties in between the petitioner and the respondent had broken. On these allegations, the petitioner filed the suit for divorce.

(2.) The respondent admitted the marriage. It was also admitted that the respondent could lead a comfortable and peaceful life with her husband and her two minor children for some time. All other allegations are denied. It was denied that the respondent abused the petitioner in the presence of the daughters. The respondent also asserted that she along with her husband (the petitioner) and the two minor children were very much living together in their own residential house of Bondel Road. The respondent refuted the alleged grounds for divorce.

(3.) During trial, the petitioner examined himself. Some documents were also marked exhibits on his side. On behalf of the respondent, herself and her sister were examined.