LAWS(CAL)-1973-7-18

KARTIK CHANDRA BANERJEE Vs. MANJURANI BANERJEE

Decided On July 04, 1973
KARTIK CHANDRA BANERJEE Appellant
V/S
MANJURANI BANERJEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is husband's appeal against dismissal of his application for declaration of his marriage with respondent No. 1, the wife, as nullity and for consequential reliefs, preferred in this Court briefly, in the following circumstances :

(2.) Shortly put, the petitioner's case is that on the negotiations of the appellant's uncle and other relations and the father of the first respondent, marriage between him and the first respondent was solemnised on 4th June, 1964 after performing Hindu rites of "Sampradan and Kusandika" at the residence of the first respondent. But after solemnisation of marriage when the first respondent was brought to the residence of the appellant on 5th June, 1964 at about 7.15 p. m. she was found not to have been behaving like a normal person at night. As according to the custom that was a night technically called "Kal Ratri" when the husband and wife could not meet, she had to remain in a separate room. There she insisted on closing all windows and doors and pulling off the ceiling fan although it was extremely hot. She also covered her body with a thick bed-sheet by lying on the bed and indulged in incoherent talks behaving like a lunatic during the whole night. On the next morning, she refused to cleanse her teeth or take her bath and as she talked incoherently "Ful-sajja" ceremony could not be performed. On the following day of Baubhat ceremony she indulged in similar behaviour and although she was forced to take bath and persuaded by her parents to wear wedding 'sarees' and ornaments she continued to behave abnormally by talking incoherently and throwing some of her ornaments. At night also at certain times she even asked the appellant to lie flat on his back so that she could pose like Goddess Kali standing on God Shiva.

(3.) It is alleged that on the next morning i.e. on 8th June, 1964, first respondent was taken to her father's residence by her parents but on enquiry the appellant came to know that the first respondent was a lunatic from long before the marriage and she was not cured by treatment.