DILIP KUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. RITA CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 14th Aug., 1987 in Matrimonial Suit No. 2 of 1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Seventh Court, Alipore.

(2.) The case of the appellant in brief is that the marriage of the present appellant with the respondent was solemnised on 12.7.76 according to Hindu Rites and Customes. After marriage the respondent/wife came to her husband's place to live with his parents. But she did not like the arrangements of the house including food, dress, mode of living etc. She also could not adjust with other members of the family. Her brothers very often used to come and pick up quarrel with the appellant/husband and his family members. Brothers of the respondent/wife used to misbehave with the other family members of the appellant/husband and it became impossible for the appellant/husband to live with the respondent. It was further alleged by the appellant/husband that the respondent used to leave her matrimonial home without any permission from the appellant/husband and she also used to break and destroy household articles with malicious motive. It was further case of the appellant that the respondent left her matrimonial home without any permission in Nov., 1977. The appellant thereafter met the respondent near Ujjala Cinema where he was asked to go. He was informed that the respondent was carrying at that time and he was surprised to know about such pRegulation ncy. She stayed in the house of the appellant's sister at Jeliakhali for about two years. In March, 1982 she returned to her matrimonial home, but she demanded a big amount of money for opening a fixed deposit account in her name. A quarrel followed and the appellant husband was compelled to live in a small room in the second floor of the house. It was alleged that on 10th or 12th Jan., 1978 the respondent tried to mix something with the food which was to be served to the appellant and the appellant suspected the same to be poison. Since then the appellant/husband used to take meal in his office. It was further alleged that in Dec., 1983 the appellant husband met a motor accident and had a fracture in his leg. But the respondent/wife never visited him in the hospital and did not take care of him.

(3.) The respondent/wife in her written statement denied all the allegations made against her. It was the specific case of the respondent that 2/3 days prior to the marriage the mother of the appellant demanded a steel almirah and a Rolex Wrist watch as additional dowry. Since such demand could not be fulfilled by the respondent's father, she was subjected to ill treatment by the appellant/husband and his mother. She became pRegulation nt one year after her marriage. The husband/appellant suggested abortion, but she disagreed. The trouble started and the respondent/wife was not allowed to enter into the room of her husband and to perform marital obligations, she was asked to leave the house and stay with her parents and she was not provided with property medical care during her pRegulation ncy. A female child was born on 14.4.78 and after the birth of the child she was sent to village-Jeliakhali to stay with the appellant's sister. She was sent to Jeliakhali by her husband with some false assurance, but during her stay at Jeliakhali for about two years her husband never visited Jeliakhali nor did he make any provision for maintenance of the respondent/wife and her child. As a result, the child suffered from various ailments. When she returned to her matrimonial home from Jeliakhali, her husband became angry. She was driven out by the appellant husband within a month of her return from Jeliakhali and from the second floor room she took shelter in the ground floor room where she is living since then. She had to depend on her parents as the appellant husband did not make any provision for maintenance till he was directed to pay interim alimony by the order of the Court. It was further stated that attempts were made by the appellant/husband to drive out the respondent wife from the home when she had to take protection of the Court and by an order of injunction she is now staying in the said house in the ground floor. She never deserted her husband nor did she commit and (any ?) physical or mental cruelty to her husband.