DEBI PROSAD DUTTA Vs. SURAVI DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the petitioner Debi Prosad dutta against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, alipore, dismissing the petitioner's application under section 13 of the Hindu marriage Apt for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that the opposite party Sm. Suravi Dutta failed and neglected to comply with the decree obtained by the petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights, in Matrimonial Suit no. 62 of 1979.

(2.) IT is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner and the opposite party were married according to Hindu rites on May 28, 1977. Tie petitioner works at Durgapur and his parents live at 20 C, Sarat Ghosh Garden Road, P. S. Kasba. After marriage the respondent lived for sometime at the petitioner's kasba house. The petitioner had Ho suitable accommodation at that time at Durgapur and he used to come to Kasba house occasionally. The petitioner was to come to Calcutta on 28. 5. 78 to celebrate his marriage anniversary but suddenly he was attacked with Chicken Pox on 24. 5. 78 and he could not come to Calcutta. The respondent on 28. 5. 78 suddenly left the Kasba house at about 7 a. m. without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner's father and went alone to Durgapur. The petitioner's father in his anxiety rushed to Durgapur in order to ascertain whether she was there. The petitioner came to. know from his father that on 28. 5. 78 the respondent's uncle, aunt and others came to Kasba house and heckled the petitioner's father. On 16. 7. 78 the respondent's uncle, aunt and others came to the quarter of the petitioner at Durgapur and the respondent went away with them taking with her all her belongings. Since then the respondent has been living in the house of her father and she did not come back in spite of several letters. At the time the respondent left the petitioner's place she was pregnant and she delivered a female child on 11. 1. 79. All attempts thereafter having failed to persuade her to come back to the matrimonial home, the petitioner filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of the district Judge at Alipore and the said suit being Matrimonial Suit no. 90 of 1979 was subsequently renumbered as matrimonial Suit no. 62 of 1979. During the continuance of the said suit, all attempts for reconciliation failed; The respondent continued with the criminal case filed by her against the petitioner his father and brother under section 406 i. P. C. and she also continued with the proceeding under section 125 Cr, P. C. instituted by her. Matrimonial Suit no. 62 of 1979 was decreed on contest on 22. 8. 79. After the said decree, the petitioner, his father and sister tried to bring the respondent back to, the matrimonial home but all attempts failed. The petitioner has thus been obliged to institute the present suit being Matrimonial suit no. 590 of 1980 which was subsequently renumbered as Matrimonial Suit no. 3 of 1981.

(3.) THE respondent contested the suit and in her written statement she alleged that the petitioner did not, take her to Durgapur on the plea that he was hot allotted a suitable accommodation. From the beginning of the marriage, the parents of the petitioner did not receive her , sympathetically and affectionately. They always insulted her and treated her cruelly. Because of ill treatment at Kasba house the respondent went to Durgapur and found the petitioner Suffering from chicken Pox. On 28. 5. 78 the respondent's brother went to Kasba house and it was reported to him that the respondent had fled away. The parents of the respondent also went to Durgapur on 28. 5. 78 but they were insulted by the petitioner's father. On 11. 7. 78 the petitioner wrote a letter from Durgapur to the father of the respondent threatening him with dire consequences. It is alleged that the respondent was. not allowed to take a single cloth and she lodged a complaint in the local thana. On 31. 7. 78 the respondent wrote to the petitioner to take her back but the petitioner did not make any attempt to take her back. On 16. 1. 79 the petitioner went to the hospital to take her after the child's birth but the respondent was not physically fit. Compliance was not possible because of the attitude of the petitioner. In the additional written statement the respondent further alleged that at the intervention of the Judicial Magistrate, 8th Court, Alipore there was a settlement and, the respondent went to her matrimonial house at Kasba on 8. 1. 81 with her child and she lived there upto 10. 1. 81. During this period there was resumption of cohabitation between the parties. On 10. 1. 81 the petitioner and his parents wanted to obtain her signature on some blank papers. On 10. 1. 81 the petitioner asked the respondent to leave the house and she was physically assaulted. Thereafter the respondent was compelled to leave the house.