PRADEEP KR. ROY Vs. SUSMITA ROY CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision application is directed against the judgment, and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Fourth Court, Alipore, in Mat. Suit No. 14 of 1989 dealing with an application under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of the Revision -first -Petitioner who as husband of the opposite party brought the Mat. Suit on various grounds and prayed for appointment of a next friend to represent the opposite party wife as Defendant in the said suit. The grounds in the Mat. Suit, inter alia, are that the opposite party wife suicide -from mental imbalance and psychopathic disorder disabling her to live with the Plaintiff husband as husband and wife. It was also alleged that the marriage was not consummated due to physical and mental incapacity of the opposite party wife. The Petitioner husband prayed for a decree of divorce on that view.

(2.) He filed the plaint in the Mat. Suit making the opposite party Respondent wife as a party represented by her next friend, father. Later, during the pendency of the proceeding he filed an application under Order 32 Rule 15 for appointment of a next friend to represent the Respondent wife, the opposite party in the present Revision in Mat. Suit.

(3.) It was contended by the Respondent wife who filed a written objection that, the allegation of her insanity or mental imbalance was totally false and that she is mentally alert and physically fit to defend herself in the Mat. Suit. According to her, the petition was filed with a motive to avoid payment of alimony pendente lite @ Rs. 500 per month as ordered by the Court. The learned Addl, Dist. Judge found that the formalities of Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not observed by the Plaintiff husband and that the facts of insanity or mental imbalance or incapacity to defend herself in the suit was denied by the Respondent wife who swore an affidavit to this effect. The learned Addl. District Judge further found that the affidavit was not controverted by any affidavit -in -opposition or affidavit -in -reply and, as such, he faulted the application under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the Plaintiff husband. On these grounds he rejected the application. Being aggrieved by such judgment and order, the Plaintiff husband has come up in Revision.